









































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Rook , C g y 


CopyrightN 0 _ 


COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 














REV. TARLETON PERRY CRAWFORD, D. D 
1901. 



EVOLUTION 

In My Mission Views 


— OR — 

GROWTH OF GOSPEL MISSION 
PRINCIPLES IN MY 
OWN MIND 




T; ?r CRAWFORD 

Tai An Fu China 


1852—1902 













PUBLISHED BY THE EDITOR, J. A. SCARBORO, FULTON, KY., 
OF WHOM COPIES MAY BE OBTAINED FOR 
75 CENTS, POSTPAID. 


TH? LlBftAftV OF 

CONGRESS, 

Tw.1 Cwiar. 

■’W 5 19*03 

CnKwtWMT wurrwv' 

fat 

a, vyK No.; 

7 : o <j 3 

J car v B 




.0 


-t? 




Copyright, 1903, 

J. A. SCARBORO. 










EDITORIAL PREFACE. 

The letters of Dr. T. P. Crawford in this work 
were written in answer to a request for informa¬ 
tion by the undersigned, who at that time resided 
at Statesboro, Ga. 

This request grew out of the desire for informa¬ 
tion concerning the facts in the matter of the 
resignation of some; and removal of other mis¬ 
sionaries of the Foreign Mission Board of the 
Southern Baptist Convention, in 1891-2, in the 
North China Mission. 

The author notified the inquirer that his request 
would be complied with, and began their prepara¬ 
tions at once. 

In 1900, Dr. Crawford, with Mrs. Crawford 
and others, fled from the “Boxers” in China, and 
during the war which followed visited the Home 
Land, but Dr. Crawford never returned to China 
as he had purposed. He completed the manu¬ 
script and delivered it to his friend a few days 
before his departure from earth labors, which 
took place at Dawson, Ga., April 7, 1902, as this 
card states: 

Dawson, Ga., April 7, 1902. 

“Rev. J. A. Scarboro, 

Statesboro, Ga. 

“Dear Sir: My uncle, Dr. T. P. Crawford 


3 


4 


EDITORIAL PREFACE. 


died to-day at half past one o’clock, of heart 
failure, after an illness of about thirty minutes. 

“Sincerely yours, 

“Ivey C. Melton.” 

His body rests in the cemetery at Dawson, Ga. 

Mrs. Crawford returned to China, and re¬ 
entered upon her chosen life work, laboring at 
Tai-An-Fu, where in ripeness of years and labors 
she awaits the summons to cease from toil. 

To us has been committed the sadly pleasant 
task of editing and publishing these letters con¬ 
taining Dr. Crawford’s experiences and views. It 
is hoped they will do good both in stimulating 
others to similar devotion to duty in missionary 
consecration and whole-hearted adherence to 
truth. 

Baptists especially should be grateful to God 
for the consecrated lives of Dr. and Mrs. Craw¬ 
ford, and it is hoped a suitable and deserved 
Memoir will be published when Mrs. C. joins him 
on the “other side.” J. A. Scarboro, 

Fulton, Ky. 

Sept., 1903, 


PREFACE. 


A few years prior to his death Dr. T. P. Craw¬ 
ford, then residing at Tai-an-fu, China, received 
from Rev. J. A. Scarboro, a request for a written 
statement of the facts connected with the devel¬ 
opment of his views as to the Scriptural conduct 
of Mission Work. Mr. Scarboro’s purpose in 
making this request was that he might publicly 
use the information which he should thus gain. 
This book contains Dr. Crawford’s reply to Mr. 
Scarboro’s request. Believing that their contents 
would be publicly employed Dr. Crawford exer¬ 
cised great care in the preparation of these letters. 
All statements of facts, dates, etc., and all quota¬ 
tions were carefully verified by reference to con¬ 
temporaneous correspondence, records and manu¬ 
scripts. 

Since Dr. Crawford’s death, which took place 
at Dawson, Ga., April 7, 1902, many of his friends 
have urged that these letters be published exactly 
as they left the pen of their venerable author. 
This book now appears in compliance with this 
wish. 

It is to be regretted that a life of so many 
years of earnest faithful service, which furnished 
so many exemplifications of self-sacrificing devo- 
5 


6 


PREFACE. 


tion to God’s truth, should not be better under¬ 
stood than that of Dr. Crawford’s seems to be. 
An unprejudiced review of the following pages 
will aid the reader to a correct conception of the 
principles which he advocated and for the sake of 
which he suffered much. At least, the reader will 
be brought into touch and sympathy with the basal 
motives of a noble life. 

Although this book is not issued for controver¬ 
sial purposes, it is hoped that its influence may 
effect the church and individual life of our Bap¬ 
tist brotherhood. It is a protest against the mani¬ 
fest tendency of the age toward the centralization 
of power and authority in the hands of those in 
control of religious organizations and institutions. 
And, inasmuch as organizations cannot exist 
without control; and, inasmuch, also, as control 
cannot be exercised without power and authority, 
the book is a protest against the existence of the 
organizations themselves. But it is more than a 
protest. It is an appeal. It is an appeal for a 
return to the simple mission methods employed 
in apostolic times—for the employment of spirit¬ 
ual means only in the performance of spiritual 
work. Large gatherings, magnetic speeches, en¬ 
thusiastic hearers, large collections of money etc., 
are the things upon which our people are com¬ 
ing to put their faith as evidences of the prog¬ 
ress of Christ’s Kingdom. We are in danger of 
believing in these things until in the midst of our 


PREFACE. 


7 


noise and enthusiasm we forget the "still, small 
Voice,” and fail to realize that, after all, what 
we are doing may be but as sounding brass or a 
clanging cymbal. 

These remarks will have reference both to the 
management of our mission work in the home 
land; also, to the conduct of that work upon the 
field. For serious dangers beset us on both 
sides. In the home land the tendency is toward 
the centralization of power and authority, as the 
following pages, supported by the recent troubles 
connected with the work in Mexico and Cuba, 
abundantly evidence. On the field the tendency 
is more and more toward the use of means, which, 
whether intentionally or otherwise, prove an en¬ 
ticement to become Christians; for example the 
use of money dispensed as charity, furnishing of 
positions, free schools often including board and 
clothing, hospitals, etc. These things easily draw 
a crowd of followers to the encouragement of the 
missionary who does not look too deeply, and 
thus furnish matter for enthusiastic reports to 
the home land. 

As intimated above, the appeal contained in 
this book is not the negative one of mere opposi¬ 
tion. It is that ignoring the temptations and 
tendencies of this present time, the churches and 
missionaries give themselves over to the guid¬ 
ance and power of the Holy Spirit, and with 
aggressive earnestness, prosecute the work com- 


8 


PREFACE. 


manded by our Lord and Savior. The appeal 
is that each church shall assume its own proper 
authority and responsibility as laid upon it by 
God; and that the missionary shall devote himself 
to the work of preaching Christ Jesus and Him 
Crucified—wherever he may obtain a hearing 
and, having so done his duty, leave the results in 
the hands of the Holy Spirit, who alone is able 
to draw the sinner to Christ 

Many prayers and hopes follow this book. 
May God own and bless it with a large influence 
for good. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Tarleton Perry Crawford was the fourth of 
ten children born to John and Lucretia Kemble 
Crawford. John Crawford was an industrious, 
thrifty farmer, with what was considered in those 
days a moderately good, common school educa¬ 
tion, and was for many years clerk of the Baptist 
church, of which he was a member. He was de¬ 
scended from the Crawford family which settled 
at an early day in Southern Virginia and North¬ 
ern North Carolina. Lucretia Kemble was of 
Philadelphia Quaker parentage, and was educated 
partly at the Moravian school at Salem, N. C. 
She was a woman of unusual mental endow¬ 
ments, and an insatiable thirst for knowledge, 
which were inherited by her son Tarleton. Soon 
after their marriage, Mr. and Mrs. Crawford 
moved to Missouri, which was at that time a 
wilderness. They had, however, removed to 
Warren County, Kentucky, near Bowling Green, 
before the birth of Tarleton, which occurred May 
8, 1821. In that sparsely populated frontier, early 
in the nineteenth century, school advantages were 
poor, and the thrifty farmer kept the seven 
brothers pretty busy at farm work. The mother, 
however, sedulously taught them, keeping regular 
9 


10 


INTRODUCTION. 


school with them when farm work was slack, and 
teaching them at night and on rainy days at 
other seasons. Like his mother, Tarleton was a 
voracious reader, soon mastering all the books in 
his father’s limited library and borrowing all he 
could from neighbors. 

He was about sixteen years old at the time 
of his conversion. One day he was entertain¬ 
ing several of his brothers and a large number of 
playmates by preaching a mock sermon as he 
stood mounted upon the stump of a fallen tree, 
imitating some of the preachers he had heard. 
In the midst of his discourse, which was very 
amusing to most of his auditors, his brother 
Thomas, next older than himself, raised his hand 
at him and said: “Tarleton, haven’t you enough 
sins upon yourself already without adding the 
sin against the Holy Ghost, which has no for¬ 
giveness in this world nor the world to come?” 
This remark went to the heart of the mimic 
preacher, who with all dispatch climbed down 
from the stump and with “hair standing on end,” 
as he often said, went home. Unperceived he got 
a large Bible and going behind an open door to 
secrete himself, he there lay face downwards and 
began to search the Bible to find out what it 
said about the sin against the Holy Ghost. Deep 
conviction seized him. He lost his appetite—could 
not work—read only the Bible, and finally took 
his bed almost in despair. About a week after 


INTRODUCTION. 


II 


his brother’s rebuke, as he lay near his mother, 
telling her of his deep sense of sin and of his 
lost condition, his mother said to him: “My son, 
whom did Jesus come into the world to save?” 
“Sinners,” he replied promptly. “And are you 
not a sinner?” “Yes, a great sinner.” “Then 
He came to save you—give yourself to Him—trust 
Him fully and He will save you.” At this he 
turned himself on the bed toward the wall and 
suiting partly the outward action to his mental 
effort, he cast himself, soul and body into the 
arms of Jesus—to be saved by Him or to be 
eternally lost, if He did not save. Instantly joy 
filled his soul and he began to sing and praise 
God. He said: “I will spend my life in telling 
of his great mercy.” 

He seems thus to have been called to the minis¬ 
try from his conversion, but temptation came 
afterwards, and many years passed before he 
finally, once for all, surrendered himself fully to 
this work. A great temptation was to enter the 
profession of law with his brother Thomas, who 
urged him to do so. His mind also, taking hold 
of a remark he heard from an old preacher, who 
said: “Don’t enter the ministry as long as you 
can keep out,” endeavored to “keep out.” But he 
could never entirely get rid of the conviction and 
finally gave himself up to be, as he said: “a 
poor, despised Baptist preacher.” 

At the age of nineteen, with his father’s re- 


12 


INTRODUCTION. 


luctant consent and $2.50, he started out to make 
his own way in the world—not yet having gained 
his final assent to God’s call. He worked a while 
and then used the money thus earned in going 
to school, repeating the process several times. 
Then he taught and attended school alternately 
until the beginning of 1848, when he entered 
Union University, Murfreesboro, Tenn., being 
sustained in part by the West Tennessee Baptist 
Convention, having several years previously set 
out to prepare for the ministry to which he 
had by this time yielded himself. He was a most 
indefatigable student, never leaving anything until 
it was thoroughly mastered—qualities of persist¬ 
ent and patient study that characterized him 
through life. He graduated in 1851 at the head 
of his class, having already been appointed by the 
F. M. B., S. B. C., as a missionary for China. 

On March 12, 1851, he married Miss Martha 
Foster, Tuscaloosa County, Ala., and they 
sailed together for Shanghai on the seventh of 
November of the same year, by way of the Cape 
of Good Hope. They reached Hong Kong the 
last of February, 1852. After a week or two 
there, they sailed for Shanghai on the schooner 
Minna, where they landed on March 30, 1852. 

He entered upon the study of the Chinese lan¬ 
guage and of his missionary work with all the 
ardor of his nature, keeping watch of every turn, 
lest he go astray. He was aware that modern 


INTRODUCTION, 


13 


mission methods were not yet settled (at least in 
his own mind) and his aim from the beginning 
was to walk along on New Testament lines as far 
as he could discover them. 

He had many struggles and difficulties, and as 
he himself afterwards acknowledged, some ambi¬ 
tions. A short while before his death he said to 
his wife, as he had often said before: “All my 
ambitions were given up on that memorable day 
in 1859 while we were at the Female Institute 
in Richmond, Va., when I surrendered myself to 
the Lord to be His alone, to work and live only for 
Him. I then and there cast away every desire 
for selfish ends and have never since allowed ambi¬ 
tion or a love for the favor and praise of men to 
come in as a factor in my work for my Master.” 
In after years, when he felt it his duty to differ 
from the great majority of the Baptist brother¬ 
hood and return, almost single-handed and alone, 
to what he believed to be the way of God as 
shown in His Word, it was often suggested, and 
even urged, upon him that he would thus sacrifice 
his popularity, and with it much of his usefulness. 
—that he would be kept out in the cold—that he 
would lose his standing in the denomination. 
But these considerations carried no weight with 
him, and he would simply reply: “I know it.” 
“If you take this step you may as well lay your 
head upon the altar,” some one said. “It is al¬ 
ready there,” he promptly replied, and there he 


14 INTRODUCTION. 

stood to the last, never wavering even in the 
darkest moment. 

In 1863, on account of failure of health in the 
sickly climate of Shanghai, he removed to Teng 
Chou, in Shantung Province, where that salubri¬ 
ous atmosphere soon restored him to health. 
Owing to the separation from the Board in late 
years, and the consequent desirability of laboring 
in a different field, he removed from Teng Chou 
in 1893, and in 1894 settled in Tai-An-Fu, sev¬ 
eral hundred miles inland, in the same province. 

Through all his missionary life his great aim 
was to give the gospel to the people and to build 
up self-supporting, aggressive, Scriptural church¬ 
es. He was emphatically a preacher, publicly and 
privately presenting the claims of the gospel in 
season and out of season. After he had sufficiently 
acquired the language at Shanghai, he went daily 
into the native city to preach alternately at the 
large chapel where great congregations could be 
gathered every day, and at a rented room up¬ 
stairs on a more quiet street. To the latter, his 
wife accompanied him and they took lunch in 
with them, or went after an early lunch, spending 
the remainder of the day, after the sermon, in 
private, individual talking, the one to the men, 
the other to the women. On other days they 
often walked out together among the numerous 
villages—sat down before a friendly door or on 
a harvest floor, and talked to the people, who 


INTRODUCTION. 


15 


crowded around them. After removing to Teng 
Chou, he preached on market days as well as 
every Sunday, keeping open the door of his street 
study or chapel. This study door was left open 
daily when he was at home and every passer-by 
was welcome in to hear the gospel. In Spring 
and Autumn he made tours among the towns and 
villages, having his headquarters at inns in differ¬ 
ent market towns, where he talked every night 
to the incoming crowds. During the day he would 
go from village to village, generally preaching 
from four to seven or eight times a day at as 
many towns, resting his voice while walking or 
riding from one to another. For several years 
he used a tent in Spring and Autumn, pitching 
it first at one town and then another, as this had 
some advantages over the inn, being a place he 
could temporarily call his own. During the Sum¬ 
mers he went out almost every good evening, after 
supper, on the streets of Teng Chou, and preached 
to the crowds who had left their steaming dwell¬ 
ings for the cooler breezes outside. In Winter 
it was his habit to go out about noon when he 
could find people resting from their work, on the 
sunny side of the street, and preach to them 
there, the women, too, often coming out when 
they heard his voice, to listen to what he had to 
say. He faithfully instructed the church mem¬ 
bers, some of whom often accompanied him on his 
preaching tours. 


INTRODUCTION. 


16 


In the midst of these arduous labors he found 
time to write several books in English, and some 
in Chinese. Among those in English was the 
“Patriarchal Dynasties,” published in 1877. 
Some years afterward he prepared a larger work 
in the same line called “The Reign of Man,” 
a chronological treatise containing translations 
of the ancient records of Babylonia, Egypt, As¬ 
syria, Persia, India, China and the Hebrews. 
This he never published because he thought there 
was so little demand for this kind of reading in 
our county that the sales would not meet the cost 
of printing. “I could have it printed,” he said, 
“but that would not secure readers, and what is 
the use of printing volumes to lie on shelves and 
,be devoured by worms?” This work and a 
smaller one are still in manuscript. 

At different periods he wrote a few hymns in 
English. One of these, of five stanzas, written in 
1898, is inscribed on his tombstone at Dawson, 
Ga., as below: 

“Dear Jesus, Friend above, 

On Thy strong arm I lean, 

In ev’ry trying scene 
I cling to Thee. 

“When earthly hopes depart, 

And friends deceitful prove, 

With unabating love 
I cling to Thee, 


INTRODUCTION. 




“When darkness shrouds the sky, 

And dangers thick unfold, 

With faith’s unwav’ring hold 
I cling to Thee. 

“When death shall seize my frame, 

And all around give way, 

My ransom’d soul shall say, 

I cling to Thee. 

“Dear Jesus, Lord above, 

Redeemer of my soul, 

While ceaseless ages roll, 

I’ll cling to Thee.” 

He also wrote “A Poem for the Churches,” 
containing about four hundred lines, which was 
published at Greenville, S. C., in 1899. His tract 
“Churches to the Front” and a selection of strong 
articles, called “The Crisis of the Churches,” 
both bearing on the Gospel Mission Movement, 
have had considerable circulation. He also wrote 
a number of other pamphlets. 

In Chinese he prepared several books which 
have had extensive circulation. A hymn book 
cost him more earnest study and labor than any 
other and has no doubt been the most useful. 
His first one in the Shanghai dialect was used 
only in manuscript by the church members, but 
was afterwards enlarged and published by Rev, 


i8 


INTRODUCTION. 


A. B. Cabaniss, and was with its still larger suc¬ 
cessor, prepared by Dr. Yates, used by the Baptist 
church at Shanghai for many years. In 1870, 
he published a hymn book in the Teng Chou Man¬ 
darin (or court dialect) which continued to be 
the only hymn book used by the Baptist church 
there as long as he remained at that city—and 
for some time after. It is still used at Tai-An- 
Fu, Chining and Kwei Tei Fu. His last poetry 
in Chinese was a baptismal hymn, written in 
1898. 

Soon after his arrival in Tai-An-Fu, in 1894, 
he had a long, severe illness which nearly cost 
him his life, brought on by the hardships of the 
removal and of the accompaniments of settling 
in a new, hostile place. He, however, recovered 
and became strong, and did much gospel work in 
this city and the surrounding country. In 1900, 
he fled with the rest of the missionaries, 
from the Boxers, and that Autumn continued the 
journey to the United States. The people in the 
South were, at that time, eager to hear about 
China, and he lectured, preached and talked be¬ 
yond his strength. From one of these preaching 
trips in January, 1901, he returned to Greenville, 
S. C., where he and his wife were then domiciled, 
in a high fever with a severe cold which kept him 
in bed several days. He was never strong again, 
and was afterwards able to preach at intervals, 
only a few times. But his mind continued as 


INTRODUCTION. 19 

active as ever, thinking along the lines of the 
great work that filled his heart. 

He gradually grew weaker, and was not able to 
return to China with Mr. and Mrs. King as he 
had hoped. In January, 1902, they went to some 
relatives at Dawson, Ga., among whom they 
found a comfortable home and loving hearts, 
where he could spend the evening of his days, not 
knowing how soon the end might come. When the 
physicians suggested that it would be well for him 
to get his matters all arranged, he replied: 
“They are all ready. I am ready to go whenever 
the Lord wills.” Three days before his death 
he wrote to his sister-in-law, in substance: “Of 
the details of life in heaven I know very little— 
but I am willing to leave them all in the hands 
of my Savior/’ 

He continued to walk out daily, but these walks 
grew shorter and shorter. A few days before his 
death, as two little nephews came into the room 
with kindling for the night he said: “Thank 
you, boys—you will not have this to do for me 
many more times.” They replied: “We would 
like to do it every day.” 

He knew that the end was near, and all the 
last words were spoken between him and the one 
who had been his companion for fifty-one years, 
as they sat side by side, and read, or walked to¬ 
gether—he now leaning upon the arm that had 
so long leaned upon his. Monday, April 7, 1902, 


20 


INTRODUCTION. 


about noon, they sat side by side on the ver¬ 
anda, talking about various matters. A friend 
passed along and stopped on the sidewalk for a 
short conversation. Almost immediately after 
this friend moved on, the aged man, with a slight 
exclamation, threw back his head, and for awhile 
both breath and pulse seemed to cease. They soon 
returned and he struggled ten or fifteen minutes 
for breath, when he became quiet and calmly 
passed away half an hour after the stroke. 

The estimate of his character as expressed by 
Prof. H. T. Cook of Furman University, S. C., 
is shared by others who were long and intimately 
associated with him. Prof. Cook says, (“Mis¬ 
sionary Helper” for May, 1902) : 

“In a profound comprehension of New Testa¬ 
ment principles and in a knowledge of their ap¬ 
plication to the needs of fallen humanity, individ¬ 
ually and collectively, he had no superior. In 
his young manhood he set himself to his task as a 
missionary, and what he sought for in the long 
years was more light on the dark problem. With 
his Bible in his hands and his heart, and with his 
head and heart in his work, he closed his mission¬ 
ary service of half a century with views far dif¬ 
ferent from those he began with; but his evolu¬ 
tion was not away from, but back to the word 
of God. This was the reason of his progress 
far in advance of his brethren. He had reached 
that sunny eminence from which human contriv- 


INTRODUCTION. 


21 


ances and the power of the living God could be 
rightly compared and judged; and along with that 
knowledge came the power to walk in the light of 
the truth. 

“He was honest, intelligently honest, persever- 
ingly honest, if he was anything. Being no mean 
philosopher, his thinking on religious subjects 
was intense, and what makes his close of life like 
the fall of the tall poplar or long-leaf pine was 
that his own rules of private life and conduct 
kept pace with the light of his thinking and 
learning. What a benediction it was to those who 
were favored with his presence in his ripened 
years, to listen to his words of instruction and 
wisdom, which came out in battalions from his 
full storehouse of experiences and memories! 
Some men come and go like the noonday shadows 
cast by a flitting bird, but into whatever heart 
Dr. Crawford entered, he remained, a permanent, 
welcome guest. 

“What a rare combination of greatness, great 
physical and mental strength, presided over by 
a strong faith in the unseen verities of another 
world, simple and guileless as a child, and so phil¬ 
anthropic that even those who acted as enemies 
toward him never put themselves outside the 
sphere of his good wishes. In no sense was he 
a narrow person; for while strict with himself 
and as narrow as the truth in his own practice, 


22 


INTRODUCTION. 


he was broad as the ocean in his love of all 
his Baptist brethren. 

“He could love his brethren while opposing 
their errors. He was too great and too origin¬ 
al a man to be carried along by the current, 
and later years will appreciate the brawny man in 
his small canoe who kept his bearings and reached 
the port in spite of the times and tides. 

“Dr. Crawford is not dead! No man ever dies 
who lives for the truth. Such a life, in the sight 
of God, not to mention men of sober judgment, 
is worth more than rubies. 

“If near-sighted mortals could take a full view 
of life’s great puzzle pictures, true greatness 
would often be found where there appear only 
snatches of an aimless pen. And how many of 
earth’s really great ones would be seen ending 
their lives in apparent failure, ‘hanging on the 
ragged edges of the outside/ beginning at the 
cross and coming down to the present day!” 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION 
VIEWS. 


. THE GOSPEL MISSION MOVEMENT. 


Rev. J. A. Scarboro. Statesboro, Ga. 

Dear Brother:— 

It will take several letters to answer all your 
inquiries concerning the Gospel Mission Move¬ 
ment. I shall not attempt to reply to them 
in the form and order presented, but will give 
a running outline of the growth of the Gospel 
Mission convictions in my own mind. 

LETTER I. 

( You ask: “What led to the organization of the 
Gospel Mission?” 

In the first place, I would say once for all, the 
Gospel Mission is not an “organization” of any 
kind. Moreover, I hope it may never become 
such; lest it should, like other organizations of our 
times, usurp control over the ministry and work 
of our churches. It is simply the name given to 
a certain movement among our Baptist people. 
This name has been its recognized designation 

23 




24 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


ever since Dr. H. A. Tupper, Corresponding’ 
Secretary of the F. M. Board, “christened” it 
under the term Gospel Mission in his report to 
the Southern Baptist Convention, at Nashville in 
May, 1893. Soon after this Dr. H. H. Harris, 
Treasurer of the Board, “confirmed” the name by 
employing it in an article published throughout 
the South, to distinguish those joining in the 
movement from those adhering to the Board and 
its methods. 

In the second place, the movement did not 
originate through the action of any meeting 
or committee, great or small; but it arose 
spontaneously from a common desire on the part 
of a number of sound Baptists to see our mission 
work at home and abroad conformed in all essen¬ 
tial respects to New Testament teachings. Such 
conformity they devoutly believed would greatly 
increase the spiritual power of our churches, pas¬ 
tors and-missionaries, enabling them far more 
readily to give the knowledge of salvation to the 
perishing millions of mankind. 

The Gospel Mission Movement is sustained 
and propelled by the co-operation of three lead¬ 
ing convictions which may be briefly expressed as 
follows: 

First—The gospel of Christ as the power of 
God unto salvation, in every mission field unac¬ 
companied by any kind of pecuniary inducement 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


25 


to the people; or in other words, through native 
self-support everywhere. 

Second—The churches of Christ should, as or¬ 
ganized bodies, singly or in co-operating groups, 
do their own mission work without the interven¬ 
tion of any outside convention, association or 
Board. 

Third—Self-denying labors for Christ’s sake, 
both by the churches at home, and by the mis¬ 
sionaries abroad. 

Let me now give you in regular order the rise 
and development of these leading convictions 
in my own mind. The first of them seized me 
substantially at the threshold of my missionary 
career, and it continued to widen and deepen as 
the years went on. It began in the following 
way: In the Spring of 1852, a small party of 
Southern Baptist missionaries—Dr. G. W. Bur¬ 
ton, myself and wife, bound for Shanghai, ar¬ 
rived at Hong Kong where our good ship Hora¬ 
tio ended her voyage. Here we remained about 
ten days waiting for a vessel to take us up 
the coast to Shanghai. We were the fortunate 
guests of Drs. Dean and Johnson of the North¬ 
ern Baptist Board. During our stay with them, 
we heard a good deal of talk about mission work, 
native converts, paid assistants, chapels, mission 
schools, hospitals and the like. We also heard 
frequent remarks concerning the characteristics 
of the Chinese people, the blunders of new mis- 


26 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


sionaries, etc. Protestant missions had then been 
carried on in and around Canton City some 
twenty or more years. Hence, certain very un¬ 
favorable symptoms were beginning to manifest 
themselves in that region. The famous Dr. Gutz- 
luff of Germany, one of the oldest and most in¬ 
fluential missionaries in the field, had recently 
died. As his large “native church” and his army 
of “paid assistants” had all come to grief, his 
ideas and methods of work were up for discussion 
in mission circles. It was said in my hearing that 
Dr. Gutzluff publicly maintained “that we should 
not expect Chinamen to be regenerated or born 
again in the present generation.” Acting on 
this assumption, he had gathered a large number 
of the Chinese into his church and put scores of 
them into the ministry without even a profes¬ 
sion, on their part, of any change of heart. I also 
heard the story of their bad character generally, 
and how they had managed to hoodwink him 
for years in succession; how by cooperation and 
false pretenses, they had continued to draw large 
sums of money from his mission treasury in 
addition to their regular salaries, and how, final¬ 
ly, one of Dr. Gutzluff s associates, having man¬ 
aged to detect their schemes, had at last broken 
up the rotten concern. The whole rotten thing, 
“from cellar to garret,” was built on mission 
money. I was years after this told by a member 
of his mission that only one of Dr. G/s numerous 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


27 


converts remained faithful to his Christian pro¬ 
fession. 

But this is not all. I also learned, while at 
Hong Kong, that all, or nearly all, of the native 
converts of every denomination, Baptists in¬ 
cluded, were in the employment of the missions 
or in some way supported by their funds. These 
things, be assured, made a deep impression upon 
my unsophisticated Baptist mind. This money 
method of making disciples and preachers seemed 
to me the very opposite of the course employed 
by Christ and His apostles. I saw clearly then, 
as now, that it must lead to utter corruption; and 
I said to myself, A true living Baptist church can 
never be built on mission money. From that 
moment my conscience rose to action and I re¬ 
solved never to use or to sanction the use of 
mission funds in paying native converts to preach 
or to do any other kind of religious work. 

To me a hireling ministry implied a corrupt 
membership; and, at once, I took up the true 
Baptist position that regenerated churches led by 
God-called, self-denying pastors was the only kind 
of Christianity for which I could work, suffer 
and pray. Let others do as they might, here I 
resolved to stand, and by the help of God here 
I have stood to this day. I have always regarded 
that decision at Hong Kong in the spring of 
1852 as my first step in the direction of the self- 
support principle in the Gospel Mission. 


28 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


On our arrival at Shanghai March 30th my 
mind was filled with the thoughts excited by 
what I had heard and seen during my stay in 
Hong Kong. My life work was begun at Shang¬ 
hai in connection with the members of our 
Southern Baptist Mission, which was established 
there in the fall of 1847. I found that ours as 
well as several other missions had large dwelling- 
houses and large chapels already built in foreign 
style, also that day and boarding schools were 
under way. Besides these, two free hospitals and 
a printing press were being run by the London 
Mission. A large place had already been rented 
within the native city by one of our brethren for 
Dr. Burton’s medical operations. Most of the 
various missions had a few dependent converts 
connected with them, while some of them had a 
native preacher or two in their pay. Our mission 
had no such preachers, not on principle, but sim¬ 
ply from the lack of converts from which to draw 
them. Many of these “native preachers,” I soon 
found, knew very little of the Scriptures, nothing 
at all of the new birth or of the self-denying 
spirit of true Christianity. They regarded them¬ 
selves simply as “foreign employes” on so many 
dollars per month to gather in converts for the 
gratification of their masters. It was evident 
to my mind that converts drawn into the churches 
by such preachers could scarcely be other than 
“place seekers” of inferior moral character and 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 2 g 

wholly unfit material for the foundation stones of 
God’s spiritual temple. It seemed to me then, as 
it seems to me now, that Baptist churches could 
never be erected on foreign money, or on what 
is known as the “employment system” of modern 
missions. 

As time went on, my observations tended more 
and more to confirm the soundness of the convic¬ 
tion and resolution formed by me at Hong Kong. 
Accordingly I took up the then strange position 
that it would be ruinous to our Baptist type of 
Christianity to support native preachers with for¬ 
eign funds, and that it was not the business either 
of single missionaries or of “mission bodies” to 
put men into the ministry; that this was the pre¬ 
rogative of the Holy Spirit and of the church to 
which a person belonged. This position threw 
me into opposition to the course pursued both in 
China and in all other mission fields. It has 
brought upon my poor head a vast amount of 
odium both at home and abroad. My native self- 
support views were then in the formative stage 
and far from complete. For some years they 
went no further than opposition to the use of 
mission money for the employment of native 
preachers, Bible women and other workers in the 
religious domain. I readily approved its use in 
building chapels, sustaining schools, dispensaries 
and hospitals, supposing then, like others, that 
these things would prepare the people’s minds for 


30 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


the reception of the gospel message. But in this 
supposition, as the sequel will show, I found my¬ 
self badly mistaken. 

Dr. Burton of our mission began dispensary 
and hospital work soon after his arrival at Shang¬ 
hai and kept it up with great zeal for four or 
five years. At the same time Dr. Lockhart of 
the London Mission was doing the same on an 
extensive scale. The effects of these medical 
operations upon the minds of the people and upon 
our evangelistic work claimed my attention more 
or less during these years. Towards their close I 
had become very doubtful both of their good 
I effect and of our right to appropriate religious 
contributions in this way; but I said nothing on 
the subject, as my mind was not fully made up. 
One day Dr. Burton, approaching me in a very 
serious manner, said: “Brother Crawford, I 
came to China to labor for the salvation of souls; 
yet, so far as I can see, my medical operations 
have not only no tendency in this direction, but 
they seem to present a positive hindrance to gos¬ 
pel work. I therefore cannot spend my time and 
the mission funds longer in this way. It is unjust 
to our supporters and no part of a missionary’s 
calling.” I did not before know that Dr. Burton 
was troubled with such feelings and his remarks 
took me very much by surprise. After waiting a 
few moments I said: “Dr. Burton, you are 
right; my perceptions are in perfect agreement 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


31 


with yours.” Dr. Burton did not stop with this 
talk, but brought his case before our next mission 
meeting, where, after full discussion, he was au¬ 
thorized, by unanimous vote, to give up his hos¬ 
pital and free medical work among the Chinese. 
After this he gave himself to direct gospel preach¬ 
ing among the people and to professional prac¬ 
tice among the foreign community. Dr. Burton, 
by his successful practice, not only supported 
himself, but became a true fellow-helper in all 
our gospel labors. This giving up of free med¬ 
ical work as a means of evangelizing the people 
is historically my second step towards the native 
self-support principle underlying the Gospel Mis¬ 
sion movement. It was not opposition on my 
part to hospitals or to medical practice among the 
natives, but opposition to their support from re¬ 
ligious contributions. 

Medical practice is a secular business and 
should support itself in every land. In other 
words, it is not a church burden and should not 
be so considered. At this point my self-support 
convictions rested for several years. I still con¬ 
sidered school work and chapel building as means 
of evangelization, and therefore legitimate objects 
for the expenditure of mission funds. To go 
back in the narrative, during the second year of 
our residence at Shanghai myself and my wife 
each opened a day school in our dwelling house, 
one for boys, the other for girls. For some con- 


32 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

siderable time both schools were supported from 
our personal funds, but afterwards from 
the funds of the Mission. We supplied a free 
room, teachers, tables and seats for the boys, but 
nothing else. Besides supplying these things for 
the girls we gave them each ten copper cash, 
equal to I cent, daily as an inducement for their 
regular attendance. This seemed to us the only 
way to secure a girl school. Like those about us, 
we then thought school teaching was an essential 
part of missionary work, and hence we estab¬ 
lished these free schools. Being at that time too 
inexperienced to see the mistake, and being eager 
to get to work, we followed the example of other 
missionaries instead of following the example of 
Christ and the apostles, who never did or sanc¬ 
tioned anything of the kind. In addition to su¬ 
perintending these day schools we gave ourselves 
most earnestly to direct gospel work and were 
blest with a goodly number of converts. One 
of these, Wong Ping San, became the first pastor 
of the Shanghai Baptist Church. During our 
stay there of over eleven years the mission never 
employed a native preacher, Bible woman or 
other religious assistant. Besides, the church as 
a body attended to all of its affairs like any other 
independent Baptist church. On the 13th of 
August, 1863, because of ruined health, we broke 
up and removed to Tung Chow City, on the east¬ 
ern coast of Shantung Province, much against 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


33 


our wishes. Some years after we left Shanghai 
Dr. Yates began to employ some native preachers, 
and finally influenced the Board to send out a 
lady doctor for the purpose of opening a hospital, 
forgetting the lesson learned through Dr. Bur¬ 
ton's effort. The lady, however, got married to 
a Scotchman soon after her arrival, and so the 
contemplated “hospital” failed to be established. 











LETTER II. 


Our shattered health was greatly improved 
by our voyage of ten days up the coast in a sailing- 
vessel, and by the bracing air in the Gulf of 
Pechili. On arriving at Tung Chow we found 
the Hartwells, who had settled here in the begin¬ 
ning of 1861, living in a large rented native house 
within the city, near the North Gate. Mrs. 
Holmes, who had removed from Chefoo after 
the death of her husband, was living in another 
rented house near their place. These had all 
studied the language for some months—perhaps 
a year—at Shanghai, and were well advanced in 
its use. Mr. Hartwell in less than two years, at 
Tung Chow, had gathered, by the aid of a native 
assistant preacher, a church of fifteen members. 
Mrs. Hartwell had a boarding school of girls; 
both preacher and school were supported by mis¬ 
sion funds. Mrs. Holmes had a small day school 
of boys, supported by herself and contributions 
from the native church members. Mr. Hart¬ 
well's preacher, within about two years after my 
arrival, “went to the bad”—to the very bad— 
and was dismissed from the mission employment. 
He was soon after excluded from the Shanghai 
church of which he was a member. He is not 


35 


3 6 EVOLUTION IN MV MISSION VIEWS. 

the only hireling preacher who has gone to the 
bad. Their number in mission fields is legion. 
After two years’ effort I succeeded in purchasing 
a small dwelling house in the southwest portion 
of Tung Chow City. To this house, after suit¬ 
able repairs, we removed and gave ourselves ex¬ 
clusively to evangelistic labors in city and coun¬ 
try. For this purpose we had come to China. 
About evangelistic work we have never had any 
misgivings ; neither have any of our Baptist as¬ 
sociates so far as known. This is itself sufficient, 
even more than .work enough for all the resources 
of our denomination without turning aside to 
doubtful things. Let Baptists give themselves to 
carrying out the commission of Christ. Give the 
heathen His gospel alone and new hearts, then 
they will get other good things for themselves. 

In process of time Mrs. Holmes secured a 
house near our place and joined heartily with us 
in all our labors. Mrs. Crawford, feeling in these 
days that she had some unemployed time on hand, 
and seeing that the Board had recovered from 
the secession war, expressed a desire to open a 
boarding school in our dwelling house, which had 
been enlarged by the purchase of an adjoining 
one. I tried to dissuade her from the under¬ 
taking, urging that it would prove both a burden 
and a constant hindrance to our legitimate gospel 
work. On the contrary, she thought it might 
be made helpful to it. Seeing she had such a 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


37 


school much at heart, and believing she could 
make it helpful if any one could, I finally gave 
my consent. But this was given with the ex¬ 
pressed understanding that she was to have the 
entire care of it, as it was my God-given calling 
to preach the gospel to the people. It was then 
arranged for Mrs. Crawford to run the boarding 
school of boys in our house, and for Mrs. Holmes 
to open one for the girls in her house; so that the 
children of both sexes might receive similar in¬ 
struction. These schools were alike supported 
from mission funds. 

During this period of school teaching and 
preaching in the city and in the country both by 
ourselves and by Mrs. Holmes, a church was 
gradually gathered around me as pastor. For 
the accommodation of this church and congrega¬ 
tion I built a good sized chapel in foreign style, 
upon a lot purchased for the purpose, a short dis¬ 
tance from our dwelling house. In all these years 
the Northern Presbyterians were in strong force 
at Tung Chow, carrying on large operations 
in schools, dispensaries, native preachers, etc. 
Their pupils and various employes alone made a 
good-sized congregation—a “stall-fed congrega¬ 
tion,” which cost their mission treasury a great 
many dollars per annum. Dr. Hartwell, of our 
Board, during much of this time supported on 
mission funds a boarding school and several 
native preachers. Our ideas differed so widely 


38 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

that the Board permitted us to work separately. 
Though I employed no preachers or other re¬ 
ligious workers, yet the whole field became so 
demoralized through the operations of other mis¬ 
sionaries that the building up of self-supporting, 
self-acting, spiritual-minded churches became a 
manifest impossibility. Thus the aim of my life 
seemed to be checkmated. By the end of 1883 
Mrs. Crawford’s experiences with her own school, 
coupled with her knowledge of other schools, had 
thoroughly convinced her that their influence 
upon the minds both of the missionaries and the 
natives, presented a serious hindrance to the 
spread of the gospel of salvation and the growth 
of a healthy Christianity. Of this hindrance I 
had become thoroughly convinced and longed to 
be free from their hamperments. As a result of 
her practical experience and convictions she now 
cast mission schools overboard and turned with 
all her energies, exclusively to gospel work among 
the people—greatly to her own comfort and to 
my inexpressible delight. With united convic¬ 
tions of duty we now cast the last dollar of “mis¬ 
sion money” out of our operations and “over¬ 
threw the tables.” Henceforth, we will neither 
receive nor use such funds. We have become 
fully convinced that mission money acts, under all 
conditions, as a kind of bribe to draw mercenary 
converts into the church—a thing wholly incom¬ 
patible with the genius of true Christianity. We 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 39 

must draw converts to it not by carnal means, 
but by spiritual means;—not through the love 
of our gold, but through the love of our God. 
This throwing down of all foreign money in 
our mission work forms the third step in my ad¬ 
vance towards the principles of action underlying 
the Gospel Mission movement. 

You thus see that it required the experience 
and observation connected with nearly thirty 
years of work on the field to enable me unaided 
by other missionaries to make the above men¬ 
tioned steps—in other words, to fully reach the 
first of the three convictions or principles of ac¬ 
tion characterizing the Gospel Mission movement. 
Having thus fully reached the scripture method 
of work technically called native self-support or 
“no subsidy” money in mission work, I felt 
anxious that our Baptist Boards both at Rich¬ 
mond and at Boston should cease as fast as pos¬ 
sible to forward money to foreign fields for other 
purposes than the personal support of their mis¬ 
sionaries in preaching the Gospel according to 
the commission of Christ. For this see Matt. 
28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-49. I 
had now come to see clearly that the “extra sum 
of money” or “subsidy funds” appropriated by 
Protestant Boards for the “work” of the mis¬ 
sionaries was the bane of modern missions, and 
I greatly desired to see our Baptist Boards and 
denomination delivered from its corrupting in- 


40 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


fluence. It seemed to be a question of life or 
death to our type of Christianity. I am a Bap¬ 
tist by conviction and my whole manhood rose 
up ready for action. I resolved by the help of 
God to return to America at my own charges and 
urge our Boards, churches and people, South 
and North, to withdraw this “subsidy money” 
from their operations and devote their whole 
! strength to direct gospel work. I saw very clear¬ 
ly the position which this fund occupied both 
with the Boards at home and with the mission¬ 
aries abroad and that to touch it, would be like 
touching the apple of their eyes. This extra 
money is collected for missions, but used to build 
chapels, support schools, dispensaries, hospitals, 
medical pupils, native preachers, Bible women and 
colporters, also to feed inquirers, aid poor con¬ 
verts and the like. Its manifest purpose or use 
at present is to widen the range and deepen the 
hold of the Boards upon the denomination at 
home, to enable the missionaries to exert a 
“drawing” impression upon the minds of the 
heathen public and thereby make many converts; 
thus furnishing data for glowing reports for the 
annual conventions and the public. By means 
of subsidy both the Boards and the missionaries 
keep themselves and their work prominently be¬ 
fore the minds of the people at home and abroad. 
Thus they seem to be carrying on many grand 
enterprises for the benefit of mankind. This is 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 4I 

the real or leading reason why the “subsidy 
fund” has taken such a strong hold upon them. 
Self-denying Gospel labors unassociated with such 
grand enterprises and large money expenditures 
fail to make a sufficient impression upon the 
mind of our impatient, rushing age which believes 
that “money makes the mare go” the same in mis-* 
sions and religion as in other things, and they 
act accordingly. But I cannot dwell upon this 
phase of the matter longer. 

While I was getting ready to leave for Amer¬ 
ica to advocate the policy of “native self-support” 
before our Boards and people, I received a copy 
of Rev. C. H. Carpenter’s “Self-Support, Illus¬ 
trated in the History of the Bassien Karen Mis¬ 
sion, from 1840 to 1880,” published by Rand, 
Avery & Co., Boston, in 1883. This work was 
sent to me and the other missionaries by our 
Board in Richmond as stated on its fly leaf. I 
read the book of 420 pages with intense interest 
and profit. I found it full of information regard¬ 
ing the evils of the “subsidy system” as operated 
in Burman and other mission fields, also of the 
happy effect of its being thrown out of the Bas¬ 
sien Karen work by Rev. E. L. Abbott, in 1848 
and also by his successors, J. L. Beecher and C. 
H. Carpenter. Of this self-support experiment 
and its happy results I was, prior to reading this 
work, profoundly ignorant. The secretaries of 
the Northern Baptist Board had sedulously kept 


42 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

the knowledge of such self-support movement in 
Burma from the people during all these forty 
, years. They decapitated Dr. Carpenter for pub¬ 
lishing the work. It is, as the Chinese say, “A 
great eye opener.” I would urge all gospel mis¬ 
sioned to read it, with his “Mission Economics.” 
Before reading the works of this good man—in 
the latter part of 1884—I supposed myself to be 
the only missionary who stood opposed to the 
“subsidy system,” and squarely in favor of ab¬ 
solute native self-support in our mission fields. 
I was glad to find my mistake and am happy 
to recognize the suppressed, ostracized and refrig¬ 
erated E. L. Abbott of the Bassien Karen Mis¬ 
sion—a Northern Baptist—as the modern Apostle 
or pioneer both in advocating and in putting into 
practice this sound principle of action—the first 
of the basal convictions of the Gospel Mission 
movement, the one that came first to the front. 
I must now give an account of my visit to> the 
home land. 


LETTER III. 


In the spring of 1885, myself and wife having 
become fully convinced that our Baptist people 
continued to uphold the subsidy system through 
lack of information regarding its corrupting ten¬ 
dencies, I set out from Tung Chow to the United 
States determined to do my best to bring it to 
an end. I was, at the same time, fully alive to the 
difficulties which might arise in connection with 
the undertaking. I feel sure that nothing but a 
profound sense of duty to the cause of Christ 
could have prompted me to make the attempt. 
The fact that our Board had sent me and their 
other missionaries a copy of Carpenter’s book led 
me to suppose they wished to prepare our minds 
for the adoption of a native self-support policy. 
This fact with the additional fact that Dr. Yates 
had recently published a strong article in a 
Shanghai paper showing up the evils of the sub¬ 
sidy system greatly encouraged me. From the 
tenor of Dr. Yates’ article I thought he might aid 
my effort to bring about a reform among our 
Boards and people at home. I spent some days 
at his home in Shanghai, having frequent con¬ 
versations with him on the subject. From these 
I discovered that, though we were agreed regard- 


44 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


ing the serious evils of the system, I could not 
count on his aid in any effort. He was far too 
much under the influence of the difficulties and 
danger for action. Feeling somewhat disap¬ 
pointed by failing to secure his assistance, I set 
out upon my long journey across the ocean in 
discharge of my duty, reaching Texas about the 
middle of May. Here I spent two months visit¬ 
ing my own relatives. While in Texas, I talked 
freely in private and in public, advocating the 
adoption of the self-support policy in all our mis¬ 
sions. On my way eastward, I attended the 
Louisiana State Convention at Shreveport, 
,where I spoke on the subject and explained the 
object of my visit home. From Shreveport I 
went to see my wife’s relatives in Mississippi. 
While there I attended the State Convention in 
Aberdeen and spoke before the body on the object 
of my return to the States. From Aberdeen I 
went direct to Mont Eagle, Tenn., to enjoy the 
benefit of the bracing air. Arriving there about 
the middle of July, I found Dr. H. H. Harris, one 
of the leading members of the Board, taking his 
summer vacation on the mountain. I was de¬ 
lighted to meet him at Mt. Eagle, as it gave me 
an excellent opportunity to lay my thoughts be¬ 
fore him privately. By previous agreement, while 
we were walking out together one evening, I be¬ 
gan to advocate the policy of adopting the prin¬ 
ciple of non-subsidy or native self-support in our 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 45 

missions. He suddenly stopped me by saying, 
“You need not argue in favor of the principle. 
I have read Carpenter’s book and I thoroughly 
believe in the necessity of self-support. My only 
difficulty lies in knowing how to put it into prac¬ 
tice.” I replied, “This is the difficulty of the 
question and to its solution I have given a great 
deal of thought. I have in mind a plan by which, 
I think, the principle can be geared ready for oper¬ 
ation in harmony with our Baptist ideas and cus¬ 
toms.” After some further conversation on ths 
subject, I proposed to write out my plan and read 
it to him at a future meeting; to this he agreed. 
On reading my proposed plan of putting it into 
practical operation, he seemed to fall into a 
state of deep thoughtfulness; yet he expressed 
neither approval nor disapproval ob it, and we 
never discussed the subject further. At that time 
Dr. Tupper, the Secretary of the Board, was on 
a mountain somewhere in North Carolina, not 
very far from Mt. Eagle. Being anxious to talk 
privately with him on the subject in mind, I wrote 
proposing to visit his stopping place for the pur¬ 
pose. But he excused himself on the pretext that 
there was no accommodation for me in his hotel. 
From his short note I inferred that he would prob¬ 
ably oppose my efforts. As the Board would 
not meet till the first Monday in October, I was 
in no hurry to reach Richmond. From Mt. 
Eagle I went on to the meeting of the Goshen 


4 6 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

Association at Bowling Green where I expressed 
my ideas of self-support in a speech before the 
body and also privately to the brethren as oc¬ 
casion offered. After this, I attended the meet¬ 
ing of another association at' Scottsville, where I 
also spoke in like manner. Some of the leading 
members of the Board were at each of these 
meetings, and heard my speeches. In my talks 
from Texas to Richmond, I advocated self-sup¬ 
port and opposed the use of subsidy money in mis¬ 
sion operations; but I never antagonized or in any 
way found fault with our Board. I had no occasion 
or desire to do so. They had always treated me 
most kindly and I had always esteemed and 
treated them as honored brethren. I had no per¬ 
sonal grievance, and besides our relations had 
been most harmonious from their beginning in 
January, 1851, down to the time of this visit in 
1885, of which I am now writing. I never once 
dreamed that the advocacy of self-support as a 
mission policy could be a cause of offense to 
them. I thought it was a highly proper subject 
for free discussion with them and with all other 
Baptist brethren. The Board, the missionaries 
and all our people were alike concerned in our 
mission methods. Besides, I had long been ad¬ 
vocating self-support in letters addressed to the 
Board and in letters published in the papers with¬ 
out opposition from any quarter. Moreover, 
during my visit to the States in 1878 and 79, I 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

had urged the restriction of money appropriation 
by all Boards to the personal support of the mis¬ 
sionaries, and of levying the natives in every field 
to meet their own wants. I urged all the Protes¬ 
tant Boards in America, either in person or by 
, letter, to hold a conference together and see if 
they could not adopt some united plan by which 
they could stop the subsidy funds and thereby 
encourage native self-support throughout their 
various mission fields. All the secretaries of these 
Boards, except those of the Episcopal, seemed 
heartily to favor such a meeting. I made a 
speech before our Board on the subject and they 
were so well pleased with the idea that they ap¬ 
pointed Dr. Tupper their agent and representative 
to aid in bringing about such a meeting. It 
never assembled. In the latter part of Septem¬ 
ber (of 1885) I went to Richmond, took my quar¬ 
ters at a prominent boarding house and awaited 
the meeting of the Board on the evening of the 
first Monday in October. When the time came I 
was present. After they had gone through with 
their business, I arose and asked permission to 
lay the object of my visit before them, which was 
at once granted. As the hour was then late, I 
stated it in as few words as possible, and requested 
them to appoint a committee before whom I would 
first lay the whole matter, then before the Board 
at their next regular meeting. To this they read¬ 
ily agreed and appointed Dr. H. H. Harris, Dr. 


48 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

W. E. Hatcher, Prof. C. H. Winston and two 
others as the committee. After waiting several 
days, I met the committee at the time and place 
appointed. Having prepared notes of the various 
points I wished to touch upon, with fraternal sin¬ 
cerity I laid before them the evils of the subsidy 
system as developed in foreign missions—both 
Baptist and Pedobaptist—and urged the apostolic 
method of leaving the natives in every field to 
meet their own expense, religious and secular. I 
urged the necessity of adopting native self-support 
as our Baptist policy North and South, and there¬ 
by distinguish our methods of mission work from 
the corrupting and burdensome methods pursued 
by other denominations; that this course seemed 
to me essential to the preservation and the prop¬ 
agation of our peculiar type of Christianity. I 
also urged that by adopting this simple policy our 
Baptist Boards in Richmond and Boston would 
save a vast amount of funds with which to send 
out and sustain a large number of missionaries 
in direct gospel work according to the commis¬ 
sion of Christ, etc. In short, I laid before them, 
briefly, the various points involved and answered 
all their questions with fraternal confidence to the 
best of my ability. At the conclusion of the sit¬ 
ting the committee proposed that the Board 
should hold a called meeting on the evening of 
October the 27th for the special purpose of con¬ 
sidering the subject. This was entirely satisfac- 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


49 


tory to me. Some days after, Dr. Tupper in¬ 
formed me that the special meeting proposed by 
the committee would be held on the 27th of Octo¬ 
ber, and that he had invited Dr. Taylor of our 
Roman, and Bro. David of our African missions 
who were then in America, to attend the proposed 
meeting of the Board, and along with me, give 
their views on the subject under consideration. I 
replied that I should be delighted to have them 
do so. Knowing that the views which I might 
express and the remarks which I might make be¬ 
fore the Board would be liable to be misunder¬ 
stood or misrepresented in many particulars, I 
took the precaution to reduce them to writing and 
to read them in their hearing. This manuscript 
has been carefully preserved. It is as follows: 

Copy of my speech before the Board : 

Richmond, Va., Oct. 27, 1885. 

“Brother Chairman and Brethren of the Board: 


It will be impossible for me to do this great 
subject of mission policy justice in one short 
speech. 

2. 

The question before us is in no sense personal, 
but: what shall be the future policy of our mis¬ 
sion work? 

3 - 

Foreign missions, conducted on two opposite 


50 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


principles have existed side by side in certain 
fields for the last fifty years. One is called the 
“Employment or Subsidy System;” the other is 
called the “Voluntary or Native Self-support Sys¬ 
tem.” The patrons of the former system have 
held sway over the public mind for the last forty 
years, while the advocates of the latter have pro¬ 
tested unheeded during the same time. They still 
protest with increasing numbers, and claim a hear¬ 
ing from their brethren. 

4 - 

In some of the older missions the two plans 
have, at last, produced their legitimate fruits. The 
first mentioned, or subsidy system has produced 
an army of native parasites or weak-kneed depen¬ 
dents on foreign money still crying for more. The 
second, or voluntary principle, has produced num¬ 
erous bands of manly, self-supporting, self-prop¬ 
agating native Christians. These results are 
now historic and perfectly evident to those who 
have looked into the subject. The facts are at 
last within the reach of all, and we must act in 
the face of them. (I here read the preface to 
Dr. Carpenter’s book, then pages 132-136; 142 
and 143; 395-398; also the tables on page 411. 
all of which one must see for himself. I also 
mentioned the substance of my essay read before 
the Missionary Conference held at Shanghai in 
May, 1877. this essay I opposed the employ- 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


51 


ment system and advocated self-support. It is 
in the Conference Minutes, and can probably be 
found in the libraries of most of the foreign mis¬ 
sion Boards.) 

5 - 

My own experience confirms the statement 
which I have just read from Dr. Carpenter’s book, 
and I firmly believe the same results will follow 
the two systems (or modes of work) in every 
field. Which of the two shall we prefer? 

6 . 

The subsidy system is contrary to the example 
of Christ and his Apostles. It is in many ways 
subversive of our Baptist faith and independent 
practices. 

7 - 

Foreign missions are not led by our Baptist 
Boards in Boston and Richmond, but by the great 
Pedobaptist Boards in Rome, London and New 
York. Baptists, North and South, should be true 
to their own principles everywhere as one man. 

8 . 

Our denomination is a gospel loving, gospel 
preaching denomination, and our churches will 
not carry subsidizing burdens. These things are 
now being discussed in every missionary circle 
abroad, and they will soon be discussed in every 
religious circle in Christendom. What shall we 


52 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

do in the face of this changing public sentiment? 
A storm is rising! Baptist schooners into port! 
We would urge our Board to embrace the present 
most favorable opportunity to lead the (coming) 
reformation, inviting the Northern Baptist Board 
to join the van. I would say, Baptists of Amer¬ 
ica, dump your subsidy loads, and “blow ye the 
(gospel) trumpet, blow.” 

God sets us free from slavish fears, 

And burdens of our own; 

He calls us to his noblest work 
To' make his gospel known:— 

To sound the year of jubilee, 

To say, The Lord is come, 

To save his people from their sins 
And take his Ransomed home. 

9 - 

The subsidy load is made up of costly chapels, 
costly schools of various kinds, native preachers, 
colporters, Bible women, dispensaries, hospitals, 
patients and other hangers-on to mission funds 
generally. The burden is like a large wen on 
the back of a man. This wen on the back of the 
Episcopalian missionary is three times larger than 
his body, dragging the ground behind him! How 
can he make progress with such an abnormal 
growth upon his back? The wen on the Presby¬ 
terian, Congregationalist, Methodist and Northern 
Baptist back is somewhat smaller, but still enor- 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


53 


mous. On the back of the Southern Baptist it 
is, as yet, only about the size of a child’s head, 
but is growing rapidly. This abnormal subsidy 
wen is absorbing all the strength and funds, 
both of the missionaries and of the churches which 
ought to be employed in preaching the gospel of 
salvation from sin in all nations. 


io. 

(In my opinion) only a provisional policy (or 
mode of procedure) should be adopted by the first 
action of the Board, leaving the detailed applica¬ 
tion of the principle in our mission work to a 
committee to report hereafter. The present time 
is highly favorable for introducing the change in 
our Southern Baptist Missions. 

First—Because dwelling houses, chapels, etc. 
are already built for our older stations, while 
for our newer stations, the buildings are not yet 
begun. 

Second—Because, just now, the Board has no 
boarding schools in China, Italy and Brazil, with 
only one in Africa and one in Mexico to be af¬ 
fected by the change. 

Third—Because, the Board is now in debt, or 
without funds for subsidy purposes, while the 
salaries of the missionaries take precedence of 
all other claims upon its funds, and since several 
new missionaries are now waiting to be sent out. 

Fourth—Because, our Board is less hampered 


54 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


and better prepared in many ways to lead off in 
the reformation movement than other Boards, and 
thus owes it to them as a Christian duty. 

11. 

Other denominations have gone so very exten¬ 
sively into the subsidizing business (in their mis¬ 
sion fields) and have so corrupted public senti¬ 
ment where it prevails as to render the growth of 
manly, self-supporting churches about impossible. 
Besides, these denominations are so involved, so 
bound hand and foot by these claims as to be 
at present wholly unable to reform. The Baptists 
are the only ones now able to do so. If they will 
lead the way, the others must sooner or later fol¬ 
low suit. The whole field must be cleared of this 
corrupting system before good work can be done 
by us. 

12. 

The Board had appointed a committee and be¬ 
gun the work of revising the “Rules and Regula¬ 
tions” long before my arrival in Richmond, and 
without consulting the missionaries on the field, as 
it had a right to do, naturally, and in accordance 
with precedent. Let the Board then, as in the 
case of their revision in 1859, define definitely and 
in detail what they propose provisionally, and 
then submit them as a complete whole for the 
approval, amendment or rejection, rule by rule to 
the missionaries. For no new article can be es- 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 55 

tablished without the approval of all. So every 
one is perfectly safe. Hence there is no need 
to postpone the matter. 

13 - 

The change proposed by me does not con¬ 
template the repudiation of any existing obliga¬ 
tion, or the sudden breaking up of any existing 
enterprise; but only the cutting off, or the limit¬ 
ing of certain future ones. 

14. 

It is said that public bodies never reform; but 
I hope our Board will prove an exception to the- 
rule. It has sufficient hold upon the missionaries 
and upon the denomination at large to do so with¬ 
out risk. To do so will increase rather than 
diminish their hold by discharging a duty and by 
giving relief to its burden-bearers at home and 
abroad. 

IS- 

Should the Board adopt the native self-support¬ 
ing policy, would it not be well for them to send 
a representative to Boston, to see if the Northern 
Baptist Board will also adopt the same principle 
in its missions, and thus unite the whole denom¬ 
ination upon it? This would make the Baptists 
able to resist the depressing influence of the sub¬ 
sidizing system maintained by other denomina¬ 
tions, until they are also brought to reform. Only 
in this way or by a bold move, can our Baptist 


56 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

doctrines and practices be established in foreign 
lands. It is a question of life or death with our 
belief in (the necessity of) a converted church 
membership. 

16. 

The board may prevent the churches relaxing 
their interest and contributions during the trans¬ 
ition period by publishing their proposed changes 
throughout the land and by calling for a large 
number of new missionaries to go to the front on 
its adoption. If we wisely and boldly manage 
this matter, the interest in missions will greatly 
increase; if unwisely, the whole work—its good 
and bad parts alike—will go down together. Let 
us each and all gladly sacrifice every personal and 
non-essential preference on the altar of our Mas¬ 
ter’s cause—the conversion of the world to his 
sway. 

17 - 

In conclusion, I would propose the following 
resolution for consideration: Resolved, That 
the Board will adopt provisionally the policy of 
confining their appropriations to the support of 
the missionaries and their evangelistic work, de¬ 
tailing the manner of its application thereto in 
printed regulations, to be submitted to the mis¬ 
sionaries and also to the Southern Baptist Con¬ 
vention for their consideration and suggestions, 
with a view to ultimate adoption by all parties. 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


57 


At the close of my speech, or reading, Rev. 
David was asked to give his views on the subject. 
He arose and read a selected portion of someone’s 
book (a Congregationalist I think) on the Con¬ 
duct of Missions. To this Bro. David gave his 
endorsement and took his seat. The import of his 
remarks may be expressed thus: “I thoroughly 
believe in the principle of native self-support as 
a theory to conjure with, but I am opposed to 
carrying it out in practice!” The Board under¬ 
stood him—apparently with approval. Dr. Tup- 
per then said that “several other missionaries had 
communicated their views on the subject by let¬ 
ter, among them Dr. Taylor of the Italian mis¬ 
sion.” But as he did not read their letters to us, 
I know not what they said. The questions under 
consideration were then referred back to the 
special committee, together with a mass of letters 
and documents bearing on the subject, with in¬ 
structions to report at the November meeting of 
the Board. There the matter stood for some time. 

I remained at my boarding house in Richmond, 
waiting for the next meeting of the Board, which 
was to take place on the 6th of November. In 
the meantime I received no information as to 
what the committee would recommend. Three 
days before the meeting of the Board, I sent Dr. 
Tupper the subjoined letter which will explain it¬ 
self. 


58 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


“Richmond, Nov. 3, 1885. 
Rev. H. A. Tupper, D. D., Corresponding Secre¬ 
tary, F. M. B. S. B. C. 

“Dear Brother: To prevent any misappre¬ 
hension as to the reasons causing my present visit 
to the United States, permit me, very briefly, but 
most sincerely and respectfully to explain them 
both to yourself and to the Board. The visit 
arose out of a conviction shared alike by myself 
and wife that our slowly acquired knowledge, ex¬ 
perience and opinions regarding the principles, 
necessities and inner workings of the foreign mis¬ 
sion enterprise ought not to be buried with us in 
China, but should be given to our American Bap¬ 
tist people, especially to those of the Southern 
States. We feel that this, our acquaintance with 
the work whatever it may be worth, has been 
gained through their long continued support, and 
that they are therefore entitled to it. We also 
feel that they cannot justly be deprived of its 
benefits. In pursuance of this sacred duty to the 
cause, we have endeavored to present the subject 
to our honored brethren of the Southern Baptist 
Board in Richmond. We now desire to present 
it to our brethren of the Northern Baptist Board 
in Boston, and to the pastors and churches of the 
South. We shall strive to perform the difficult 
task in a Christian spirit, in a manner worthy of 
the cause of missions and in the fear of God. 
Having no personal ends to secure, no quarrels to 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 59 

maintain, no wounds to avenge, no enemies to fear 
—and feeling only the warmest love for our fel¬ 
low laborers at home and abroad we desire and 
hope to receive such sympathy and co-operation 
on the part of the Boards, pastors, editors and 
churches as will tend to facilitate our undertak¬ 
ing—probably closing the labors of our earthly 
career. Should such facilities be rendered us by 
the brotherhood we feel confident that our efforts 
will, by the blessing of God, rightly tend to re¬ 
move unnecessary burdens from the work of mis¬ 
sions, impart fresh vigor to the churches, send 
more preachers of the gospel to the front, en¬ 
courage those now on the field and, in many ways 
hasten the conversion of the world to our blessed 
Redeemer. I remain, dear brother, yours in the 
bonds of the gospel of Christ, 

“T. P. Crawford.” 

I did not attend the meeting of the Board on 
the 6th of November to hear the committee’s re¬ 
port, in order to leave the Board free to say and do 
as they pleased on the subject before them. The 
committee, I was informed soon after, presented 
the following very remarkable report: 

“Your committee have heard with interest the 
views of Dr. T. P. Crawford on self-support, or 
the policy of confining appropriations strictly to 
work done by our missionaries, leaving native 


6o 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


laborers to support themselves, or be supported by 
their fellow converts. 

“We clearly recognize self-support as the con¬ 
summation towards which all missionary opera¬ 
tions should tend. Without such an aim missions 
are, and must be, a failure. We believe that the 
principle of self-support should be put into prac¬ 
tice as soon as possible in every mission field, and 
wherever it cannot be adopted in whole but might 
be in part, there it should be adopted just to the 
extent to which its adoption is practicable. These 
are our convictions of the rightfulness and neces¬ 
sity of self-support as an end to be kept in view; 
and we do not doubt that they are shared by all 
the missionaries under our appointment. 

“An entirely different question is presented 
when we consider whether we will incorporate this 
principle into a rule which would, in the future, 
forbid all appropriations for work done by native 
Christians, at least in the fields of missionaries 
that may be appointed hereafter. Should self- 
support assume the shape of inflexible law? We 
are constrained to think not. (Why then should 
it not assume the shape of flexible rules as pro¬ 
posed in my speech before the Board ?—C.) 

“First—It would introduce confusion into our 
missionary operations. If we applied the rule to 
the missionaries now in the field, they might find 
occasion to complain that we had imposed condi¬ 
tions upon them that did not enter into the original 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


61 


agreement? (Where is the original agreement 
that the Board will furnish their missionaries with 
subsidy money?—C.) ‘And if we restricted the 
application to new missionaries, a difference would 
be made between the old and the new men which 
might become a source of discontent and friction.' 
(More probably a source of preventing these 
things.—C.) 

“Second—An inflexible rule” (Then use a 
flexible one.—C.)—“would seem to assume what 
we think the facts would not sustain. It would 
assume that circumstances and conditions are the 
same everywhere; that missionary labor has like 
environment under every sky, and among every 
people and tribe; that one method is equally suited 
to the plodding Chinaman and the restless Mexi¬ 
can, to the jungles of Africa and the classic shores 
of Italy; that in dealing with men no account need 
be taken of race distinction, of different social 
customs and different degrees of enlightenment.” 
(Everywhere the subsidy money has proved to be 
a corrupting element.—C.) 

“Third—It would seem to imply a distrust of 
the effects of God’s grace in mission fields. We 
would seem to say we fear the gospel cannot lift 
the Chinaman or African above the cor¬ 
rupting influence of money.” (Marvel¬ 
ous argument! First corrupt the people with 
your subsidy money and then let “God’s grace” 
lift them above it!—C.) “To the foregoing 


62 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


views your committee append two resolutions, 
recommending their adoption by the Board: 

“Resolved, First that while the principle of 
self-support in our mission work is essential to 
healthy progress and ultimate success, we believe 
its practice is to be established not by formal rule, 
but as the result of growth and developments”— 
(In corruption under the subsidy system!—C.). 

“Resolved, Second, That we urge upon our 
missionaries the duty of holding constantly in 
view self-support as an object to be attained, and 
of training their converts and churches in this 
direction with all possible diligence.” (While 
the Board will continue to render their efforts 
futile by supplying the corrupting foreign gold. 
—C.). 

“Two other subjects were brought to our at¬ 
tention by Dr. Crawford: the plan of making 
exactly the same appropriation to each mission¬ 
ary,” (in the same field.—C.) “and the abolition 
or modification of the technically called “Mis¬ 
sions.” But as these questions properly belong 
to your committee on revision of rules, we have 
not felt it our duty to give special consideration 
to them.” 

Here ends the report of this committee as it 
was adopted by the Board on the evening of 
November 6, 1885. It can be seen in the minutes 
of the Southern Baptist Convention of 1886 at 
Montgomery, Ala., pages 23-25. 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 63 

As I was not present when the Board adopted 
the above report they appointed two of their 
number to show it to me; and to inform me that 
the Board wished me “not to advocate my views 
of self-support and mission methods before the 
churches, but to return to China as soon as pos¬ 
sible,” or words to that effect. I told these two 
brethren that I greatly regretted to find I could 
not secure the co-operation of the Board in my 
sincere effort to introduce the policy of self-sup¬ 
port in our mission operations, and to learn that 
they were opposed to having the subject presented 
to the churches. I further told them that, as the 
Board had fully acknowledged and endorsed the 
‘'rightfulness and necessity of self-support in our 
mission work,” I was glad to find them in agree¬ 
ment with me in the principle. I then said, since 
we are all under moral obligation to carry out in 
practice every right principle when once perceived 
to be right, the manner of doing so could stand 
over for future adjustment. After these and some 
other like remarks, I requested the two brethren 
to see if they could secure for me a called meet¬ 
ing of the Board at the earliest possible date, as 
I wished to offer an amendment to one of their 
resolutions and could not decide upon my future 
course without another interview with them. To 
this they agreed and secured the called meeting 
of the Board on the evening of November 20th. 

On entering the room, a little late, I found Dr. 


64 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

Tupper making a speech. Toward the close of it 
he said: “The adoption of self-support would 
break up the Italian mission.’' His closing sen¬ 
tence was: “As Dr. Crawford has had an oppor¬ 
tunity to express his views before us he should 
now return to his field of labor in China and leave 
the Board to do as they please in the matter.” 
Dr. Tupper having taken his seat, I rose, thanked 
the Board for meeting at my request, and said: 
“I have seen the report of the special committee 
as adopted by the Board at their last meeting; 
that I was glad to find that they thoroughly ap¬ 
proved of the principle of self-support in our mis¬ 
sion operations; and as all persons were morally 
bound to carry into practice every approved prin¬ 
ciple without unnecessary delay, the manner and 
difficulties of doing so were to me minor or non- 
essential points, which could well stand over for 
future consideration.” I then said: “As we 

were agreed that the principle of native self-sup¬ 
port was the right one for all our mission opera¬ 
tions, I desired to offer an amendment to the end 
of their second resolution, making it read thus: 
‘Resolved, Second, That we urge upon our mis¬ 
sionaries the duty of holding constantly in view 
self-support as an object to be attained, and of 
training their converts and churches in this direc¬ 
tion with all possible diligence; and that the 
Board will aid their efforts to the utmost of its 
ability! I then added: “As in the expressed 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 65 

opinion of the Board, the object could not be at¬ 
tained by the use of an inflexible rule, and as I 
was opposed to such rules, we could all adopt a 
flexible rule as had been proposed by me on the 
27th of October, for there are many flexible rules 
from which to choose.” On taking my seat Prof. 
C. H. Winston arose and said: “I am astonished 
that Dr. Crawford should accept the resolutions 
of the Board as at all satisfactory! He wishes 
to commit us to the approval of self-support, a 
thing which we are not prepared to do. I there¬ 
fore beg to offer the following resolution: ‘Re¬ 
solved, That in the opinion of this Board, our 
brother, Dr. Crawford, should not continue fur¬ 
ther discussion before our Southern churches of 
plans for the conduct of missions; and further, 
that it would be gratifying to the Board if he 
should be able to return, at some early date to his 
work in China/ ” It soon received a second. 
I then rose and calmly protested against its pas¬ 
sage as unbaptistic, and as interfering with my 
liberty of speech in matters of public concern. I 
also said: “Suppose your missionaries, by living 
long among a heathen people, should come to 
have views of their work differing from those of 
this Board in Richmond, what then? Are they 
to be decapitated? If so, I fear there will be a 
good deal of this kind of work to do.” I then 
took my seat. The resolution was passed with 
one feebly expressed ‘no/ ” I understood the reso- 


66 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


lution to contain a threat of extermination if I 
dared to disregard the attempted gag. After its 
passage, I rose and asked: ‘‘If I gave up the ob¬ 
ject of my visit in obedience to the resolution and 
returned to China, would the Board be ready to 
meet the expenses of my journey both ways?” 
To this question I received no reply, pro or con. 
Here ended the conference. Being requested to 
close the meeting with prayer, I did so in a very 
devout frame of mind, asking the guidance of the 
Holy Spirit in all our mission affairs. After 
waiting a day or two, I went to the rooms and 
asked Dr. Tupper for a copy of the resolution— 
gag resolution I considered it. He gave me the 
copy. At the same time I handed him a copy of 
my written speech read before the Board on 
October 27th, with the request that he file it 
among the archives of the Board. 

After this I went over the river and stopped 
a few days with a friend in Manchester, ponder¬ 
ing carefully the situation and adjusting the de¬ 
tails of my future course of action. 

I told my friend in Manchester how matters 
stood between me and the Board. He expressed 
himself as in thorough sympathy with my self- 
support views, and of the necessity of giving our 
churches information on the subject. I also 
showed him Dr. Carpenter’s book and tracts dis¬ 
cussing the matter in the light of many years’ ex¬ 
perience among the Northern Baptist Board’s 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 67 

mission in Burma and among the Karens of Bas- 
sien. Becoming deeply interested in the question, 
he proposed to accompany me on my tour through 
the churches and sell Dr. Carpenter’s book among 
the people. This seemed to be just the thing, and 
I arranged with him to this effect,* on condition 
that I finally decided to make the tour. While 
at Manchester I wrote the following unsent let¬ 
ter tO' the treasurer of the Board, which I will 
copy here in full, since it shows how I felt and 
regarded the action of the Board at that trying 
time: 

“Manchester, (Va.) Nov. 28, 1885. 

J. C. Williams, Esq., Tr. F. M. B. 

“Dear Brother: Please permit me to say in 
writing, and to you personally, that my letter 
to Dr. Tupper, corresponding secretary, under 
date of November 3, set forth my real object 
and desire in coming to the United States. I 
still desire to carry out my original purpose with¬ 
out conflict with the Board. Many of the mem¬ 
bers have told me that my visit to Richmond had 
done good—a statement very gratifying to me. 
I feel that my proposed visit to the churches, if 
not opposed by the Board, will also do good. I 
realize the difficulties surrounding the Board. I 
have kept them constantly in view and treated 
them, as a public body, with due consideration. I 
still propose to do so. I claim for myself like 

*The arrangement fell through. 



68 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


consideration. I am not seeking to bring about 
a revolution, but a reformation in mission relations 
and work. I wish the Board to retain their posi¬ 
tion in the denomination and to reform abuses of 
their own accord. At the same time, I feel that, 
if I am to continue in the mission work, if I am 
to give my sanction, or be to any extent held re^ 
sponsible for results, a true and healthy reform 
must be instituted as speedily as possible. Be¬ 
sides, I am seeking a reformation in the methods 
of all Protestant Missions, without which a re¬ 
formation of our own methods alone will effect 
very little good for the cause. I feel to the depths 
of my soul, that my undertaking is necessary, 
honest, honorable and good for our people. 
Hence, I also feel that my high aim entitles me 
to the confidence, sympathy and encouragement 
of my brethren of the Board. Differences of 
opinion as to the best way of bringing about the 
needed reformation should not in any particular, 
disturb the relations between me and the Board 
as a body, or between me and the individual 
pastors, professors and brethren composing it. 
Everything should be done by mutual agreement. 
Am I the only one to be considerate of the pub¬ 
lic position of others ? Are the Richmond pastors 
to be exempted? Are they at liberty, either col¬ 
lectively as the Board or separately as individuals, 
to disregard my public position as a missionary 
minister of long standing in the denomination? 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 69 

Can they rightfully put me into the ‘refrigerator’ 
or disgrace me by turning me out of their churches 
and out of the general association of Virginia 
because of my views upon mission methods? 
Could they, in either capacity, open public war 
on me while I was in private conference with the 
Board upon the subject? Are my views a crime 
to be punished without mercy or regard to my 
rights as a brother in Christ? Have I not re¬ 
peatedly said, of my own accord, that I would 
refrain from publicly ventilating my views on 
mission matters while consultations were going 
on between me and the Board regarding them? 
Was not my word sufficient? and have I not 
kept it ? Must my character and rights be 
treated as of no value? or the Board proceed in 
a formal business way to pass a resolution to 
choke me to death? Have they a right to ap¬ 
ply intimidation to their missionaries ? Is not such 
a course in direct violation of the written agree¬ 
ment or regulation, which says: ‘The relation 
between the Board and the missionaries is of the 
most fraternal kind’? Can my views of self- 
support—acknowledged to be according to sound 
doctrine by the action of the Board at their last 
regular meeting—forfeit my right to freedom of 
speech among my supporters? Do the South¬ 
ern churches belong to the Board? Should the 
Board not be careful not to inflict injuries on me 
or on others through anxiety to maintain their 


70 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

own position in the denomination? Will they 
make themselves responsible for the evils of the 
‘subsidy system’ and accept the consequences of 
it? Why don’t they join issue with the principles 
of self-support and try to overthrow them by 
argument instead of acknowledging their ‘right¬ 
fulness’? Why then do they turn around and 
attempt to destroy my personal influence? Will 
any personal defects or blunders on my part jus¬ 
tify such a course on their part? I have never 
antagonized the Board or meant to do so. Why 
then do they take the initiative and antagonize 
me? Is’opposing the subsidy system opposing 
the Board? If this be the case, let them say so 
straight out, and we will know how to act. Can 
the Board favor two opposite systems at the same 
time? Subsidy and self-support are in deadly 
conflict; then to favor the one is to oppose the 
other. They say by their vote as a body: ‘We 
clearly recognize self-support as the consumma¬ 
tion towards which all missionary operations 
should tend’ and that, ‘without such an aim mis¬ 
sions are, and must be a failure.’ Is it wrong for 
me to labor to prevent the continuance of a sys¬ 
tem which leads to ‘failure’? or wrong to labor 
to introduce the one that is acknowledged to be 
sound in every respect? Does not the success of 
missions concern me as well as the Board—even 
more ? How then are such views to be kept from 
the churches? Will information on the ‘conduct 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 71 

of missions’ injure the churches? Is ignorance 
the mother of church devotion to the Board and 
therefore to be carefully fostered? If ignorance 
is not to be fostered among the churches, who 
then will give them the needed information? 
Where is the man both able and ready for the task 
without expense to the Board, except myself? 
By their encouragement the reformation can be 
brought about most readily, and in a Baptist man¬ 
ner, with great advantage to the cause and to 
all concerned. The Board, it is said, is now in 
debt and needs money to sustain the missionaries 
in the field. Will not the needed reformation, 
if publicly promised and properly carried out in 
practice, be the very way to allay misgivings and 
get the money, both for their support and for the 
extension of the work? On the other hand, will 
suppressing me and withholding information from 
the churches be the way to get money from Bap¬ 
tists, or to fill the treasury of the Board ? I trow 
not. Would it not be better for them to utilize 
my influence and labors rather than to attempt 
unjustly to destroy them, and with them, the free¬ 
dom of speech and feelings of manhood on the 
part of all their missionaries? Must they be re¬ 
quired to cater to the Board in all things in order 
to hold their salaries and reputation? If this 
is to become the rule of action among us, what 
then about the boasted ‘soul-liberty’ of Baptists? 
I suspect, from what I know of our people gen- 


72 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

erally, that the Board’s effort at suppressing in¬ 
formation about mission matters will cost far 
more than it will yield in dollars and cents; and, 
if persisted in, it will prove to be the beginning of 
the end of the whole Board system among Amer¬ 
ican Baptists. Time proves all things. There 
is nothing hid that shall not be brought to light. 

The above are some of the many questions and 
thoughts running through my brain on the oc¬ 
casion. Apologizing for the length of this letter, 
I remain, dear brother, yours in the Lord, 

“T. P. Crawford.” 

Instead of sending the foregoing letter, I went 
in person to see Bro. Williams and said to him 
in substance: “The Board’s last resolution con¬ 
tains an implied threat; it is very embarrassing 
since it places me in an unexpected and very awk¬ 
ward position;” that I had always worked undei 
the Board without friction; that I had no wish 
or intention in coming to the home land to an¬ 
tagonize them; that I had done everything in 
my power to prevent such a result; that I could 
not see why they should thus take the initiative 
and without cause put themselves in such an an¬ 
tagonistic attitude towards me! Then I sug¬ 
gested that probably the offensive resolution was 
passed without due consideration, and I hoped 
they would, on further reflection, gladly rescind 
it. Accordingly, I asked him to present my re- 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


73 


quest for its withdrawal at their next regular 
meeting on the first Monday in December. To 
this he kindly agreed. I also told him that I 
would hold the decision of my future course in 
suspense until I heard from him. I then went 
to Petersburg and remained quietly there till his 
letter came, telling me that “the Board had de¬ 
clined to withdraw the resolution. ,, 

This left me free to choose my course of ac¬ 
tion. I felt exceedingly serious in view of the 
situation. I had manifested a sincere anxiety to 
work in harmony with the Board and had done 
my best to secure their co-operation. Their re¬ 
fusal to render it, though a cause of grief, was 
to me no cause of complaint. But when they 
went beyond a simple refusal and attempted to 
interfere with my right of free speech on the prop¬ 
er “conduct of missions”—a matter of deep and 
conscientious concern to me—I felt that it was a 
fearful encroachment upon my most sacred and 
essential rights, a deliberate usurpation of control 
over my conscientious convictions of duty to God, 
to the churches which had put me into the gospel 
ministry and had so long supported me as a mis¬ 
sionary among the heathen. I felt that they had 
a right to know about the subsidy system and 
other evils into which their missions had drifted, 
so that they might apply suitable remedies. I 
also felt that it was my God-given duty to im¬ 
part the information in my possession. I still 


74 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


feel so. At that time anti-Board sentiments had 
not dawned upon my mind. I assured them in 
my speeches more than once that. I desired to 
increase, rather than diminish their influence in 
the denomination. They would not have it so, 
but deliberately determined to suppress informa¬ 
tion by interfering with my liberty as a minister 
and missionary of Christ, 


LETTER IV. 


On reading Treasurer Williams’ letter, inform¬ 
ing me of the refusal to rescind their gag resolu¬ 
tion, my course of action was fully determined. 
At once my sense of duty prevailed over all per¬ 
sonal considerations, over the terrible ostracism, 
refrigeration and extermination that clearly 
awaited me. Without further delay, I began my 
lecture tour through the churches of the Southern 
States, resolved to the utmost of my ability to set 
before our people the evils of the prevailing “sub¬ 
sidy system” in foreign missions, and to urge 
upon them the necessity of adopting the policy 
of “native self-support” in all mission fields, as 
an essential policy for the preservation of our Bap¬ 
tist type of Christianity. At the same time, I re¬ 
solved to do this important work with due respect 
for the position of the Board and the missionaries 
with whom I was so intimately associated, also 
with due consideration for the pastors and 
churches which I might visit. I gave my first 
lecture on the subject in the first Baptist Church 
of Petersburg, over which Dr. Dargan (now of 
Louisville, Ky.) was pastor. I did the same at 
the other two churches; then at Farmville, then 
at Lynchburg. While at Lynchburg I heard 


76 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

about the contents of a letter written by Dr. H. 
H. Harris (president of the Board in Richmond) 
to one of the pastors of Lynchburg, designed to 
destroy my personal influence with the brethren. 
His remarks were of such a nature as to lay him 
liable to a prosecution for libel both before his 
church and before a civil court. I wrote him an 
anonymous letter reminding him of this fact. 
Though I had no intention of defending myself 
by any kind of prosecution, even though I might 
be accused of horse-stealing or of any other kind 
of crime, still I thought it well to inform him 
that, while there was perfect moral and legal 
freedom of speech in discussing the principles and 
methods of conducting missions, there were both 
moral and legal limitations to freedom of speech 
in regard to slander and libel. After this I heard 
no more of such letters following my lectures. 

From Lynchburg I went to Danville, where I 
remained a week or more, lecturing to large con¬ 
gregations. From Danville a most flattering ac¬ 
count of my oratorical gifts and interesting lec¬ 
tures was (without my knowledge) published in 
the Religious Herald. This account greatly dis¬ 
turbed some of the leaders at Richmond. I paid 
no attention to such things, but went on with 
my work for the Lord. Leaving Virginia, I next 
went through the state of North Carolina, lectur¬ 
ing at Chapel Hill, Durham, Wake Forest (not 
at Raleigh, as a revival was going on in the Bap- 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 77 

tist church there), at Goldsboro and at Wilming¬ 
ton. From thence I passed through South Caro¬ 
lina, Georgia and part of Alabama to Montgom¬ 
ery, lecturing at various churches on the way, 
the pastors and brethren everywhere manifested 
their approval of my views. 

At Montgomery I attended the meeting of the 
Southern Baptist Convention, the missionaries, 
Powell of Mexico, Bagby of Brazil, and Diaz of 
Cuba being present. According to a long prevail¬ 
ing custom, returned missionaries are allowed to 
address the convention on some afternoon during 
the session. Before the time came I learned from 
a delegate, stopping at the same house with me, 
“that the Board expected me to appeal from their 
decision on the self-support question and attack 
them before the convention. ,, He also said “that 
certain of them had come prepared to squelch me 
if I should attempt it.” I had never once dreamed 
of doing anything of the kind and had never given 
any just ground for such an expectation. It all 
grew out of; their own imagination. I also learned 
afterward, that the members of the Board present 
did their best, at a private meeting of the leaders 
in the basement of the church, to so arrange mat¬ 
ters as to prevent me from speaking at this meet¬ 
ing in the same underhanded way they had pre¬ 
vented me from speaking at the General Associa¬ 
tion of Virginia the fall before. But, said my 
informant, President Mell and Dr. McDonald 


78 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

would not hear to it. So I was given a chance 
to speak. Had it been denied me I should have 
offered my resignation to the convention, stating 
the reason for so doing, and leave the body to 
decide whether it would approve the effort to es¬ 
tablish the “gag law” and thereby deny the right 
of free speech to their regular missionaries. But, 
I am glad to say, it did not come to this. When 
the “missionary hour” arrived Dr. Tupper in¬ 
troduced Powell as the first speaker. After him 
Bagby. Both of these missionaries called for 
more money to employ native preachers, support 
schools and build additional chapels in their res¬ 
pective fields. After they were through Dr. Tup¬ 
per introduced me to the assembly. I said noth¬ 
ing against the Board, the missionaries or any¬ 
one else, as was my constant custom. I set forth 
very briefly the evils of subsidy and advocated 
the principle of native self-support as the only safe 
policy for Baptists, and urged that by the adop¬ 
tion of this policy our missionaries and people 
would have a status of their own, which would 
deliver us from the serious position of following 
as mere caudal appendages to the Roman Catholic 
and other pedobaptist denominations; that its 
adoption would enable our Board to send out 
many additional missionaries to preach the gospel 
according to the commission of Christ, etc. 

In the conclusion of my speech I told the con¬ 
vention that I did not wish them to take any ac- 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


79 


tion on the subject, but simply desired the mem¬ 
bers to give the matter a thorough study until 
they were enabled to make an intelligent decision 
upon the policy to be pursued in our mission work. 
Nothing further was publicly said or done on that 
occasion. 

I remained resting at Montgomery a few days 
after the adjournment. At the weekly prayer 
meeting of the church, I gave an outline of my 
views to a full house; when., to m*y surprise, the 
pastor followed me with an outspoken and fearless 
endorsement of them and the policy of self-sup¬ 
port in our missionary operations. From Mont¬ 
gomery I went through North Alabama and West 
Tennessee, attended the meeting of the BigHatchie 
Association, where, as at all other places, I 
expressed my views without reserve and with 
much approval. From West Tennessee I went 
to the meeting of an association at Russellville, 
Ky. Here I expressed myself very freely, meet¬ 
ing with some opposition from two would-be 
leaders. From Russellville I went to Bowling- 
Green, where I remained some days with relatives, 
giving several lectures. From Bowling Green I 
started for Louisville, stopping at Smith’s Grove 
Station, fifteen miles distant from Bowling Green, 
whence I went out to see my birth-place at the 
eastern foot of the “Pilot Knob,” about two miles 
from the station. In Louisville I lectured in Dr. 
Eaton’s church, then attended the Long Run as- 


80 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

sociation, “talked a talk” and returned to the city. 
Here I considered my lecturing tour at an end. 
From Lousiville I took the cars for New York, 
where I remained a few days. While here I at¬ 
tended the ministers’ Monday morning meeting, 
made a five minutes’ speech urging that Baptists, 
North and South should adopt the self-support 
principle in their missions, making it the policy 
of our whole people and leaving the subsidy sys¬ 
tem to the Pedobaptist denominations. By so 
doing we would be able to cut loose from follow¬ 
ing after them as mere caudal appendages, and 
hereafter work on a line in harmony with our 
own peculiar type of Christianity. If, said I, we 
continue to follow their methods much longer, our 
type of Christianity will be utterly lost. These 
few concentrated remarks seemed to set them to 
thinking, as I perceived by their looks, and by 
their words after adjournment. During these 
few days’ stay in the city, I wrote the following 
letter to the president of the Southern Baptist 
Convention: 

New York City, Sept. 18, 1886. 

My Dear Dr. Mell: My lectures among our 
Southern Baptist people closed last Thursday 
night at Dr. Eaton’s church, Walnut street, Louis¬ 
ville, Ky. The next day I set out for my home 
in China, via New York and London. I am to 
sail from here the 23rd inst. on board the steamer 
“Alabama” for Glasgow, Scotland. 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


8l 


I sent you, long ago, my photo as promised. 
Hope you received it in good order. I now en¬ 
close you two copies of a printed slip “On the 
Conduct of Foreign Missions.” This slip has been 
prepared by me with great care and reflection. 
It suggests the lazvs under which I desire to see 
our foreign missions placed by the action of the 
Convention, voicing the will of the denomination. 

From the days of Judson to the present time 
—or for full three-fourths of a century—the great 
foreign mission enterprise has been conducted by 
the unlimited will of Boards and missionaries. 
In other words, missions have existed with¬ 
out law, in a kind of crude, infantile 
state. Of course, “where there is no law, there 
is no condemnation, or guiltyet there may be in 
such a state great errors and losses of many kinds 
which laws (and laws that are laws are always 
just, wise and good) are designed to prevent. 
Let us have them in missions as soon as possible. 
The cause is suffering greatly for the lack of 
them. Boards and missionaries should no longer 
have a “free ticket” to the purse of the churches 
for any and every sort of enterprise which they 
may consider to be good. The work of foreign 
missions should not embrace “all sorts of good 
things,” as the public has been taught to believe; 
but, it should be confined to preaching the gospel 
to every creature, etc., according to the command 
of Christ. Let us adhere to the Commission, 


82 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


and He will be with us—“always, even unto the 
end of the world.” There is plenty of work cov¬ 
ered by the Commission for ages yet to come, 
without turning aside to other things. 

In conclusion I wish to say that, with only 
two exceptions, I received a cordial welcome from 
all the pastors and churches (after leaving Rich¬ 
mond) visited on my trip through the South, fol¬ 
lowed frequently by expressions of deep sympathy 
for my views of mission work. I leave the re¬ 
sult with God. I have treated Boards, mission¬ 
aries, pastors and churches with due respect and 
Christian courtesy everywhere and at all times— 
ever keeping in mind the spirit of the Master and 
the dignity of the cause I represent. You are 
authorized to disbelieve all newspaper and private 
reports of an opposite kind. Pray for me, dear 
brother. With the warmest Christian regards, 
let me now bid you farewell. 

Yours very truly, 

T. P. Crawford. 

On the 23d of September, I sailed for China 
via Glasgow, London, Paris and Rome. At 
Rome I remained several days, enjoying the hos¬ 
pitality and society of my friend and missionary 
brother J. H. Eager. From what I saw, heard 
from him and previously knew of the people, I 
came very clearly to the conclusion that the 
“classic shores of Italy” were less promising for 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 83 

Baptist missions than the heathen shores of China. 
The various Protestant denominations had, as it 
seemed to me, thoroughly demoralized their mis¬ 
sion work by the lavish use of their “pious gold.” 
Here the subsidy system is perhaps carried to 
greater extremes than elsewhere. The Italian 
claims the right to make his Protestant religion 
pay—otherwise, as a general thing, he will have 
nothing to do with it. He seems far more 
exacting in this respect than the Chinaman. While 
churches and Boards continue to supply the 
funds, I fear that most of their missionaries will 
continue to yield to the demands of the candi¬ 
dates for membership, and that their demands 
will continue to grow more exacting. 

I fully agree with Dr. Tupper’s speech when he 
said, before the Board: “If we adopt self-sup¬ 
port it will break up the Italian mission.” He 
well knew it rested wholly on an “American gold 
basis,” as his positive assertion clearly implied. 

From Rome I took the cars to Brindisi, where 
I joined an English steamer which took me across 
the Mediterranean, through the Suez Canal, down 
the Red Sea to Colombo. There I took another 
steamer to Shanghai, then another to Chefoo, 
then a mule litter fifty miles up the coast to my 
home in Tung Chow on the 16th of December, 
1886, having been absent in my reformation effort 
about nineteen months. 


LETTER V. 


Having returned to Tung Chow with invigor¬ 
ated strength, I resumed my labors in and around 
the city, the same as in previous years in con¬ 
nection with the Board and the Mission, not 
supposing that I had done anything to disturb 
my relation to either. I carried on these labors 
in a very quiet manner, writing nothing for the 
home papers upon the subject of self-support, 
but leaving the whole matter with the Board. In 
the meantime, my mind was busy watching the 
drift of matters and the methods of the Board in 
conducting their affairs, hoping they might take 
steps to encourage the policy which I had so faith¬ 
fully advocated. I had determined to give them 
a fair chance to show their hand. I still ad¬ 
hered to the Board system of carrying on mis¬ 
sions, not being able as yet to think of any other 
way of doing it. 

As time went on, I saw that the Board was 
keeping up the subsidy system in all their fields 
without modification, the same as before. They 
showed themselves through Dr. Tupper, their 
corresponding secretary, as very anxious to have 
all the missionaries sign all their new “Rules 
and Regulations,” which took pains to place more 

85 


86 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


power in the hands of the Board than the old ones 
had done. Dr. Yates, and a number of the 
older missionaries at first declined to accept them, 
but finally, by the use of various means, Dr. Tup- 
per succeeded in getting their names to the docu¬ 
ment. The new appointees were required to sign 
the document before they were able to comprehend 
its import. These movements for the establish¬ 
ment of the new Rules and Regulations, with 
the constant effort through the “Journal,” the 
“State Papers” and private letters, were to over¬ 
throw the confidence of the pastors, churches and 
missionaries in me personally, and thereby neu¬ 
tralize my influence regarding the necessity of 
reform. 

These things showed very plainly what kind of 
ideas were prevailing in Richmond. The course 
of the Northern Baptist Board towards Dr. Car¬ 
penter, another advocate of reform, satisfied me 
that to other self-supporters, no quarters would 
be allowed by Baptist Boards and that nothing 
but alert opposition against the spread of self- 
support principles and practices from our Boards, 
or from any other Boards, was to be expected. 
In about a year and a half after my return to 
Tung Chow, through facts, events and opera¬ 
tions going on at home and on mission fields, I 
became thoroughly convinced that the whole 
Board system in all Protestant denominations in¬ 
cluding our own was inseparably connected with, 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 87 

committed to, and dependent upon the contin¬ 
uance of the subsidy system. Then, for the first 
time, and as a consequence of the former dis¬ 
covery, I saw that the prevalence of a self-sup¬ 
port policy would leave the Boards little or noth¬ 
ing to do, would greatly diminish the business 
of collecting money from the churches and dis¬ 
tributing it to the missionaries; that this dimin¬ 
ishing of their honorable business would corre¬ 
spondingly diminish their power, hold or influence 
over the denomination—a result, from their stand¬ 
point of thought, never to be allowed—no, never. 
Here is the clew that solves many an enigma 
connected with modern mission operations. This 
is the reason why myself and Dr. Carpenter had 
to be killed off, and our self-support influence had 
to be stamped out. And this is the ground of the 
intense opposition to the Gospel Mission move¬ 
ment and its advocates. When I once saw be¬ 
hind the screen, I was astonished at my former 
honest stupidity or want of comprehension regard¬ 
ing the situation and I have reason to believe that 
Dr. Carpenter was substantially in a similar state 
of blissful ignorance. I knew pretty well that 
centralized governments and other centralized 
worldly institutions habitually rejected proposals 
for reform and attempted to preserve their power 
by destroying the would-be reformers and by 
adding more centralization and authority to their 
position; but I wholly failed to apply the law or 


88 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


tendency to Mission Boards. I thought they were 
good Christian brethren, exempt from such feel¬ 
ings, and would therefore be ready both to con¬ 
sider and adopt any policy that might appear true 
and beneficial to the cause regardless of their own 
position. How badly I was deceived—self-de¬ 
ceived! Had I known what I afterwards dis¬ 
covered, I certainly would not have spent so much 
time, money and labor, as my visit to the Board 
in Richmond cost me. I would have known the 
result in advance, squelched the visit and worked 
for self-support by other methods. Dr. Carpen¬ 
ter and Bro. Herring, I suppose, would also have 
done likewise, had they known the situation in 
advance, as they afterwards found it. But these 
futile efforts opened my blinded eyes and prepared 
the way for the true movement. God works all 
things after the counsel of His own will and 
makes no mistakes—so I have no regrets over ap¬ 
parent losses and failures, since the knowledge 
gained through these experiences enabled me to see 
that it was utterly futile to expect Boards to intro¬ 
duce a self-support policy into their mission opera¬ 
tions. Then, as I very plainly saw, it must be 
introduced otherwise, or our labors would be in 
vain. I then turned to the study of the apostolic 
churches and methods of carrying out the com¬ 
mission of Christ, also the nature of our Baptist 
doctrines, church government and aim in contrast 
with those of the Pedobaptist world. Then I be- 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


gan to see clearly that the central Board system 
into which we have fallen, was not only out of 
harmony with apostolic principles and methods, 
but destructive both to the spirituality and to the 
independence of our Baptist churches—responsi¬ 
bility being essential to their healthy activity and 
growth. This seemed to me of first importance, 
but how to arouse them to take up the work of 
missions from a sense of obligation to Christ, 
after having neglected it so long or relegated it 
to the Boards of outside organizations, seemed to 
me—when looked at from a human standpoint 
—as a moral impossibility. The choice between 
two things had to be made by me, neither of 
which was easy to do. I was at the “forks of 
the road,” and could not, like the Board at Rich¬ 
mond, either attempt, or try to appear to take 
both forks. See the report of the special com¬ 
mittee as adopted by them as given in preceding 
pages. 

Having lost all hope in the will or ability 
of the Board system to direct our Baptist missions 
on Scriptural principles, and seeing that it was 
drifting from bad to worse, I felt that the time 
had come for me to sound the alarm and strike 
for a thorough Revolution or abandon the mis¬ 
sion work altogether. Conscience, or a sense of 
fidelity to the Master’s cause forbade the latter 
course, while the ability to accomplish the former 
seemed utterly lacking. Here I stalled, unable 


90 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


to move for several months. The situation was 
mental torment. At the beginning of 1889, when 
the first quarter’s salary of the year was due, 
I told the treasurer of the mission to hold my 
portion, subject to my order, till the end of the 
quarter or till I was able to determine my future 
course. In the latter part of March, Mrs. C. 
being in a country town at the time, I finally and 
fully made up my mind to resign my part of our 
salary and to draw no more money from the mis¬ 
sion treasury for the expenses of my work. 
Thereby I freed myself from pecuniary obliga¬ 
tions to the Board so that I might be at liberty 
to follow my own judgment and carry out my 
own convictions of duty. Accordingly I wrote 
and sent the following letter to the treasurer of 
the mission: 

“Tung Chow, March 30, 1889. 
Rev. C. W. Pruitt, Treasurer North China Mis¬ 
sion Hwanghien. 

“Dear Brother: Today, by the grace of God, is 
the thirty-seventh anniversary of our arrival in 
China, the beginning of our missionary life. 
What we have passed through during these years 
will never be told in this world, but may be in 
the next. I do not regret having spent my life 
in China, though it has, in many respects, proved 
a hard one. Beginning ignorant of the con¬ 
ditions of missionary work among this people, 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 91 

I had to feel my way along an unbroken path. 
Frequently finding myself going wrong, I had to 
retrace my steps, to begin afresh, and to undo 
what I had done amiss. I have nothing of which 
to boast, but many mistakes to deplore. On the 
other hand, having tried to be faithful to the 
Master and to the spirituality of His Kingdom 
as interpreted by true Baptists, I am quite with¬ 
out self-condemnation, especially since the sum¬ 
mer of 1859, when in an upper room of the Fe¬ 
male Institute, in the city of Richmond, Va., I 
surrendered to the Lord, the last bit of personal 
ambition in connection with my missionary work. 
Since then, to do His will has been my only 
conscious motive. Having at an early day taken 
up views regarding the use of foreign money in 
mission work, quite in advance of my associates, 
and contrary to the prevailing custom, I have had 
to occupy a most odious position, and to main¬ 
tain a desperate struggle for existence throughout 
most of my career. Being most of the time in 
a minority consisting of one and reaching the 
whole truth of the matter only by slow degrees, 
and having all along my course to make con¬ 
cessions to my associates, I have never been able 
to carry out my convictions into full consistent 
practice. Hence my position has been irritating 
(to myself and to others) beyond degree. Had 
I been able to seize upon the whole truth at my 
settlement in Tung Chow, and to carry out my 


92 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

convictions squarely into practice, the situation 
would have been infinitely better. Then I would 
at least have possessed a fortification of my own. 
As it was, I could do nothing but skirmish, irri¬ 
tating both to the missionaries and to the natives. 
My situation as a whole has been one of the hard¬ 
est that ever fell to the lot of mortal man. Like 
Paul, I have had to do, not what I would, but 
what I would not. It has not been the position of 
my choice, but of my necessity. Forced by out¬ 
ward circumstances over which I had no control, 
I have been compelled to excite ‘pecuniary ex¬ 
pectations’ among the people, and being forced 
at the same time by my inward Baptist convic¬ 
tions, I have been also compelled to disappoint 
and rebuke them! Oh, wretched man I have 
been! Even Paul knew nothing of such a trial. 
May all others be spared it. 

There are (so far as I can now see) only three 
positions which a missionary to the Chinese can 
possibly take upon this (money) question: 

First—To so live as not to excite ‘pecuniary 
expectations’ (in their minds). 

Second—To so live as to excite and disappoint 
them—my case. 

Third—To so live as to excite and gratify 
them—the case with most missionaries. 

About these positions I will write at a future 
time, as I now have other things to mention. 

I am now nearing my sixty-ninth year, and 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


93 


beginning to feel the effects of age and past strug¬ 
gles (mostly the struggles). For many reasons 
of a physical, mental, and spiritual character far 
too numerous to mention here, I now wish to re¬ 
tire at my own charges, from all future work, 
care, and responsibility in connection with the 
Board, leaving this field with all its interests in 
the hands of the Board and the denomination. I 
shall therefore draw no more money from the 
treasury of the Board for my own use, excepting 
the interest due on the cost of my house. Now, 
I do not mean by this course of action to resign 
or to sever my connection with the Board or with 
the Mission, but only to retire from the service 
(of the Board). 

Being no longer able to discharge the incumbent 
duties, I desire to retire from them and look after 
my health (much injured by the perplexities of 
the situation). 

My retirement is not designed to effect the 
status or the work of my wife in any way what¬ 
ever, and she will continue to draw her half of 
our salary, or $515, with the appropriations for 
her work as usual, but hereafter, in her own 
name, and also to continue to labor in this field 
while it shall be her pleasure to do so. 

In conclusion let me say that, with high re¬ 
spect for every member of our Shantung mission, 
and in perfect agreement in regard to mission¬ 
ary work, I retire from active labor, but not from 


94 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

an active interest in them personally, and in this 
great mission field. Neither do I propose to re¬ 
tire from the work of the Master, but to serve 
him faithfully to the end. Only profound con¬ 
victions of duty to the Master’s cause and to my 
own health influence me to take this course. 
Asking the love and prayers of all, I remain, dear 
brother, 

“Yours most sincerely, 

“T. P. Crawford.” 

It is said above that “profound convictions of 
duty to the Master’s cause and to my own health” 
led me to take the above course. This was liter¬ 
ally true. But at the same time I had become 
thoroughly convinced that the central Board sys¬ 
tem was contrary to the genius of Christianity 
as found in the New Testament and the consti¬ 
tution of our Baptist churches. I also saw that 
this modern machinery was responsible for the 
origin and continuation of the subsidy methods 
and various other evils connected with our mis¬ 
sions abroad and with our church life at home. 
My judgment being fully convinced, my con¬ 
science rose to the occasion prepared for action, 
regardless of difficulties or personal losses. So 
now, by the grace of God, I was enabled to throw 
down my salary and gird myself ready to strike 
for a thorough Revolution, single-handed and 
alone. My decision was to set out to the home 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


95 


land about the middle of May, and if my health 
and strength would permit on reaching Texas, to 
raise the cry, Down with the Board and the sub¬ 
sidy system and up with the churches in all mis¬ 
sion matters at home and abroad. Victory or de¬ 
feat did not enter into the consideration. 

I thus came to take the fourth step towards 
the principles and methods underlying the Gospel 
Mission movement which constitutes the second 
division, into which I have divided it on page 25 
of this paper—to-wit: “The churches of Christ 
should as organized bodies, singly, or in co-oper¬ 
ating groups, do their own mission work, without 
the intervention of any kind of outside convention, 
association, or Board.” 

I said nothing to any one at Tung Chow about 
this determination, as I felt very uncertain whether 
my health would permit me to put it into execu¬ 
tion. These questions had so intensely occupied 
my mind that I was feeling such decided symp¬ 
toms of paralysis that I dared not say in advance 
what I might attempt to do. These symptoms still 
growing worse, after resigning my salary, my 
family physician, about the middle of April, ad¬ 
vised me not to delay, but to set out for the 
home land as soon as possible. This I did, going 
alone, on or about the 22d of the month, deter¬ 
mined, if health permitted on arrival, to take 
a tour .thro ugh the Southern states, urging on 


96 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

the churches to assume their Christ-given re¬ 
sponsibilities and as His organized bodies do their 
own mission work according to the commission, 
throwing off dependence upon outside bodies. 


LETTER VI. 


On reaching Shanghai, I found I would have 
to wait about three weeks for a steamer to San 
Francisco, as the one leaving soon after my ar¬ 
rival was filled with passengers already engaged. 
This detention proved to be decidedly to my ad¬ 
vantage, enabling me to mingle with my brethren 
and sisters of our Central China Mission in a 
manner not only delightful, but most beneficial 
to my health and spirits. They were earnestly 
seeking a greater degree of consecration or self- 
denial in their lives and missionary work. They 
were unanimous in thinking their salaries larger 
than needed for a comfortable support, but they 
had not as yet decided what the reduction should 
be. They were also considering the question of 
adopting the native dress, leaving their foreign 
built houses and living in modified native dwell¬ 
ings, in order to get nearer to the people. I was 
invited to join in their daily discussions of these 
important matters, and I did so most gladly. 
They finally reached substantial agreement on the 
above points and I fell in line with their decision. 
As I had already resigned my salary, I had none 
to reduce, but I wrote to my wife about the move¬ 
ment and she at once joined in it. She was then in 

97 


98 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


the native dress, having worn it to advantage 
about three years. But I will leave Brother Her¬ 
ring, the real author of this self-denying principle 
in the Gospel Mission Movement, to give the de¬ 
tails of its origin and development. 

While stopping in Shanghai, I told the breth¬ 
ren of my purpose, health permitting, while at 
home, to urge our churches to cease contributing 
to outside organizations and do their own mis¬ 
sion work, singly or in neighboring groups. This 
was the first time I had mentioned my purpose 
to anyone. They tried to dissuade me from it, 
but without success. My mind was so fully made 
up—my convictions of the scripturalness and 
necessity of the effort for the healthy action of 
our churches and the advancement of the Re¬ 
deemer’s cause, that nothing was able to turn me 
from it. 

On the 15th of July I reached the town of Abi¬ 
lene, in Western Texas and stopped awhile with 
a niece living there. The new scenes of the jour¬ 
ney seemed wonderfully to remove all my symp¬ 
toms of paralysis, and the full vigor of my mind 
and body appeared to return. Learning from 
the pastor of the church that the Abilene Asso¬ 
ciation would meet with his people in two weeks, 
I decided through his kind invitation, to remain 
until after the meeting. 

At once I began efforts to arouse the churches 
to the duty of doing their own mission work— 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 99 

home and foreign, according to the New Testa¬ 
ment example and genius of our Baptist constitu¬ 
tion. While waiting for the meeting of the 
association, I went to Blair (a railroad town about 
thirty miles distant) by the invitation of the pas¬ 
tor, and talked to his people on the intervening 
Sunday morning and night, in regard to the 
duty of every church, great or small, to arise as 
a body and carry out the commission of Christ. 
I told the pastor, in advance, the nature and aim 
of the discourse I wished to make and said that, 
if he was afraid for his people to hear my views, 
I would desist. He bade me go ahead as he was 
not at all afraid for them to hear the matter dis¬ 
cussed. After my discourse was ended, he rose, 
and much to my encouragement, declared that he 
was in full sympathy with my views and urged 
his people to act upon them. The next Sunday 
night, I talked to the Abilene church upon the 
subject. At the conclusion of my speech, one of 
the deacons moved that the church at once con¬ 
sider and adopt the scriptural method of carrying 
on their mission work. This motion, seeming 
to me rather hasty, I advised him and the church 
to consider the matter carefully before taking 
action, and suggested that their next business 
meeting would be soon enough for its adoption. 
The pastor, a lovely, Godly man, treated me most 
fraternally, but I noticed that he was careful not 
to commit himself, regarding my views of church 


L. of C. ? 


100 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


responsibility and duty of action in the conduct 
of missions. Besides, I thought it would be 
proper for him to sanction and lead the move in 
his church to make it successful. Here the mat¬ 
ter rested. When the association met in his church 
a few days after, I noticed that taking his seat on 
the stand, he called the meeting to order as the 
fprmer moderator. He was soon re-elected, and 
presided over its deliberations in a most excel¬ 
lent manner. I found it to be a large and in¬ 
telligent body. Drs. Carroll, Burleson, Buckner 
and some other acknowledged leaders of the 
“organized work,” were present for the purpose 
of enlisting its co-operation in certain schemes 
proposed by the State Board. When the time 
came, the moderator appointed the pastor of the 
Blair church and myself a committee to bring in 
a report on missions. We did so, recommending 
the churches, as churches, to do their own work, 
without the intervention of any outside body. On 
a motion and second to adopt the report as pre¬ 
sented, I rose and addressed the meeting in its 
favor to the best of my ability. No one offered 
objections and the report was adopted, nem. con. 
I have never since heard from it—suppose it died 
at birth, like the majority of such “recommenda¬ 
tions.” From Abilene I went to the town of Cis¬ 
co, where I also urged the matter upon the atten¬ 
tion of the church. From here I attended the 
“Cisco Association,” which met at a country 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


IOI 


church, quite away from the railroad. Here I 
also addressed the association, urging the churches 
to the front, the moderator showing me great 
kindness and expressing sympathy with the views 
advocated. Both of the above named associa¬ 
tions had their own Boards and were trying to do 
some mission work in this way—these association- 
al Boards seemed to be only abridged editions of 
the state and general Boards—all alike engaged 
in the unbaptistic work of usurping the preroga¬ 
tives and destroying the responsibilities of the 
churches. From here I went to see my brother 
at Salado, Bell county, where I remained a couple 
of weeks, talking up church missions in public 
and in private. 

My health seeming well established, I now set 
out on my contemplated tour among the churches 
of the Southern States, taking a Northern direc¬ 
tion through Waco, Cleburne, Hillsboro, Dallas, 
McKinney to Sherman, where one of my nieces was 
living. I spoke to the churches on my theme at all 
these places, intending from Sherman to turn east¬ 
ward through Arkansas. But before I had finished 
my work at Sherman, I received a telegram from 
my brother, urging me to return at once to Salado 
and help him in a matter which had arisen since 
my departure. From this cause, I took the train 
and went back to Salado. While here, I began to 
doubt my ability to do anything with the churches 
—they seemed so dead or indifferent to the im- 


102 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


portant subject to which I wished to arouse their 
attention, that I felt almost like giving them up 
in despair. One pastor, an old schoolmate, told 
me that I “couldn’t produce a ripple among them.” 
The indications that met my observation strongly 
tended to justify his conclusion. Still, somehow, 
I could not give them up and felt impelled to go 
on with my arduous, unthankful and expensive 
undertaking. By the consent of Pastor Smith, 
I made an appointment to address the church at 
Belton on the subject. I went to the town on 
Saturday, prepared to preach to his congregation 
on Sunday morning and announce a course of 
three lectures before them on the subject of mis¬ 
sions. The Sabbath opened with a tremendous 
rain, continuing all day long. The bell was not 
rung, and not a soul was seen on the streets. So 
my effort here failed of execution. The pastor, 
who was very kind and not afraid for me to talk 
to his people on church missions, told me that 
he would leave early in the week to attend the state 
Convention at Houston, in the southern portion of 
the state. So I concluded to go with him to 
Houston, attend the Convention and while there 
try to diagnose the condition of the Baptist mind 
in regard to the matter occupying my thoughts, 
and, if possible, decide upon my future course in 
regard to it. The meeting was a large one, most¬ 
ly preachers. There was great dissatisfaction 
with their “state secretary.” The delegates were 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. IO3 

sharply divided into two parties, and with great 
difficulty a compromise was effected. When the 
missionary hour arrived for me, Simmons of Can¬ 
ton and David of Africa to address the Conven¬ 
tion, Dr. Burleson got the floor and held it by 
speaking about his university matters for more 
than an hour, thus leaving me and the other two 
missionaries only ten minutes apiece. Of course 
I could not do justice to my great subject in that 
short time—I ran rapidly over my notes, and be¬ 
fore they were finished, the bell rang me down. 
The result of my diagnosis was very unfavorable 
to the idea of attempting to take a tour through¬ 
out the churches. I saw that the host of secre¬ 
taries and editors would, as soon as they became 
aware of my purpose, warn the pastors against 
me in such a way that many of them would close 
their pulpits. 

I also saw that such a general indifference pre¬ 
vailed among the brethren on every phase of mis¬ 
sion work, that all my efforts to do them good 
would be futile. Still further, I perceived that 
the fatigues resulting from my previous labors 
and from attendance on the sessions of the conven¬ 
tion, that my constitution would prove unequal to 
the task. At the close of the Convention I was 
unable to travel or do anything but rest for sev¬ 
eral days. So I abandoned my purpose and 
went to my sister-in-law's home in Gatesville, 
Texas, where I remained from October till the 


104 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

first part of April. Here I gave myself to chop¬ 
ping wood, mending her fences, her house, her 
yard, doing jobs and the like. By thus casting 
off all mental labor, by taking up physical work 
as much as possible, my strength grew steadily. 
I enjoyed my quiet stay with sister beyond des¬ 
cription. It was the first real good rest I had 
experienced in forty years. Its happy effects have 
continued with me ever since. In April, I went 
to Dallas, put up at a boarding-house in order to 
get my manuscript book, “The Reign of Man” 
ready for the press, and to see what arrangement 
could be made for its publication. I prepared it 
for the printer, but did not succeed in getting it 
published on satisfactory terms. And so it stands, 
to the present. 

I remained in Dallas till after the meeting of 
the Southern Baptist Convention at Fort Worth 
which I attended as a looker-on only, going from 
Dallas back and forth daily. Though I purposely 
took no part, I was a close student of the man¬ 
agers, the working of the machinery, the nature 
and aim of the institution as conducted by them. 
It seemed to me entirely out of harmony, both 
in spirit and in practice, with our Baptist Christ¬ 
ianity. I felt miserable in view of the tendency 
of things among us. I seemed to stand on the 
bank of a rushing stream, to see the “ship of Zion” 
drifting rapidly out to sea among the breakers. 
I felt utterly helpless—unable to drift with her, 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 105 

and unable either to check or deflect her onward 
course. All I could do, it seemed to me, was to 
stand helplessly on the bank and see her drift out 
into the breakers! All that I could do was to 
cry: 

Lord, thou dost reign, 

And sway maintain 
Through thy domain— 

We trust in Thee, 

Oh, Lord, in Thee! 

The saints of old 
In deaths untold, 

Ne’er lost their hold 
On faith in Thee, 

Oh, Lord, in Thee! 

The night’s now dark! 

And our lov’d ark (church) 

Is out to sea— 

The treach’rous sea! 

Whate’er may come, 

Whate’er be done, 

Oh, Righteous One, 

We trust in Thee, 

Great God, in Thee! 

A few days after the adjournment of the Con¬ 
vention, or about the middle of May, I purchased 
a railroad ticket, via Albuquerque to San Francis¬ 
co and set out for China, reaching my home in 
Tung Chow some time in July, 1890. 


LETTER VII. 


On arriving at Tung Chow, I found the state 
of matters in our mission had changed consider¬ 
ably during my absence. Several new mission¬ 
aries had been added to the force and all seemed 
to have adopted the theory of native self-sup¬ 
port or the non-use of subsidy money in the 
work. 

All the members of our North China mission 
being at Tung Chow in October, it was agreed 
after consultation to meet together and formu¬ 
late the leading views of our work, relations, etc. 
A committee consisting of Mr. Pruitt, Mr. Bostick 
and Miss Moore was appointed to draft articles 
expressive of these, to be presented for considera¬ 
tion at another meeting. This was accordingly 
done by them in eight articles. On assembling 
to consider them, it was previously decided that 
no article of agreement could be adopted except 
by unanimous vote. After the most full and 
fraternal discussion and amendments on the mode 
of expression, the first of the eight articles was 
unanimously adopted. It reads as follows: 

“i. That our missionary work shall be evan¬ 
gelistic, striving by word and life to spread the 
knowledge of Christ among the people—hoping 

107 


108 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

by the blessing of God upon our work, accom¬ 
panied by the regenerating power of the Holy 
Spirit, to see earnest self-acting Baptist churches 
gradually rise throughout the land, under the 
guidance of God-called native ministers of the 
Word. In order to this end, and to cut off “pe¬ 
cuniary expectations”—a great hindrance to the 
progress of the truth—we will hereafter use no 
mission or public money in the work beyond our 
personal and itinerating expenses, including ne¬ 
cessary religious books and tracts—except that aid 
may be extended to struggling churches in rare 
cases. We also deem it unwise for us to be¬ 
come pastors, school teachers, charity venders, 
or meddlers in Chinese lawsuits.” 

I need not copy the other articles, as this first 
one is sufficient for our purpose. Finding all my 
associates thus agreed upon these self-support or 
non-subsidy principles for which I had so long 
contended and suffered, of course I felt greatly 
relieved and encouraged, though none of them, 
as yet, had accepted the idea or reached the con¬ 
viction of mind that the churches, as such, should 
do their own mission work without the interven¬ 
tion of any kind of outside body, as I had done. 

After my return to Tung Chow, I resumed 
my evangelistic labors as usual, and continued 
to point out in a private way, the inability of the 
Richmond Board to abandon its subsidy opera¬ 
tions and adopt a real self-support policy, or 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


109 


suffer its missionaries to do so. I further main¬ 
tained that the only way by which we could pos¬ 
sibly secure the operation of native self-support 
and other healthy Baptist doctrines, in mission 
fields, was to call the churches as organized 
bodies, singly and in local groups to come to the 
front, or take missions in hand and confine their 
work to carrying out the Commission of Christ, 
letting uncommanded things alone. Thus mat¬ 
ters went quietly on with me. I drew no salary, 
I took no responsibility and cast no vote in 
mission meetings. I published no articles advo¬ 
cating my views on mission subjects and made no 
replies to those issued by the Board—or rather by 
its president and its two secretaries—designed to 
prejudice the denomination against me as a man, 
and thereby destroying the influence of my well- 
founded convictions regarding mission operations. 
I simply let these officers have their way and 
went on with my work for the Lord, hoping 
that He would in His own good time, raise up 
younger and abler men to maintain the cause for 
which I had suffered so long and so intensely. 
I had not surrendered it, but only ceased public 
efforts in its behalf. Thus matters stood and times 
went on with me till about the middle of July, 
1891, when Rev. G. P. Bostick showed me a letter 
which he had just received from the pastor of a 
strong church in North Carolina. This letter told 
Mr. Bostick that the church of which he was 


no 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


pastor had resolved to support a missionary of 
their own in China, or words to this import. 
I became intensely interested in the letter. It 
revived my drooping spirits and aroused my 
hopes that there might be a goodly number of 
pastors and churches in our wide-spread denomin¬ 
ation of like desires. As a result of the stimulus 
thus imparted to my discouraged mind, I wrote 
a long letter of sympathy to this pastor and his 
people. But this did not satisfy me, and I started 
to write to a number of pastors who I thought 
might possibly encourage their people to do like¬ 
wise, urging with all my might in favor of the 
churches as bodies doing their own mission work. 

After sending off four or five of such private 
letters, the thought struck me that it would be 
far better to put my views on the subject into a 
small, but carefully prepared tract and send it 
forth among the pastors and churches, leaving the 
result in the hands of the Lord. With this men¬ 
tal decision, I ceased writing private letters and 
began the preparation of the proposed tract. I 
worked at it a long time, writing it over and over, 
correcting and condensing it again and again, 
until it seemed happily to express exactly what 
I wished to say—no more, no less. When the man¬ 
uscript was completed, some time in the month of 
November, I gave it the title, “Churches, To the 
Front!” 

It was sent at once to the press at Shanghai 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


Ill 


to print and bind into a tract of 1,000 copies in 
their best style and form. In due time the “proof 
sheets” came to me by mail. These were cor¬ 
rected and returned to the press, late in December, 
in which month it was printed, bound and for¬ 
warded to me at Tung Chow. But knowing in 
advance that the tract could not be received ready 
for distribuion before the new year, I had it 
dated 1892. 

It was a neat little tract of 14 pages, well execut¬ 
ed by the press in every respect. Its contents are 
grave, chaste and free from every kind of invec¬ 
tive, but it deals with the Board system with an 
unsparing hand and urges the churches most 
earnestly to resume their abandoned prerogatives 
and responsibilities, to carry on their own mis¬ 
sion work, at home and abroad, without the in¬ 
tervention of any outside body. It never singles 
out our Southern Board for animadversion or 
attacks the personal character of its members. 
Most of the copies were sent off in January, prin¬ 
cipally to persons in the South, but some to those 
in the North. Copies were mailed to the officers 
both of the Southern and of the Northern Boards. 

A revised edition may be found in my little book 
“The Crisis of the Churches,” from page 64 to 
78. It can be obtained from Prof. H. T. Cook 
of Greenville, S. C., or H. C. Haddock, Liberty, 
S. C. With the sending forth of this tract, 
“Churches, to the Front,” I felt that my public 


112 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


efforts in this direction would terminate; that if 
the principles of self-support and church responsi¬ 
bility in the conduct of missions were to be pushed 
to a successful consummation the work would 
have to be done by younger brethren who might 
espouse the cause. Even then there were indica¬ 
tions that God was preparing the minds of some 
of them for such work. 

During the fall of 1891, I perceived that the 
thoughts of Brother Bostick and some other 
believers in self-support among our North China 
missionaries were turning towards the idea of 
church missions—but I must leave Brother Bos¬ 
tick and others who espoused the cause to tell 
their own story. 

Out of eleven members of our mission who un¬ 
animously adopted “Article I,” copied on pages 
107 and 108 of this essay, only seven of them went 
on and espoused the principles of church mis¬ 
sions and self-denial. In other words, they en¬ 
tered fully into the Gospel Mission movement, 
giving up their salaries and other perquisites con¬ 
nected with the Board system. The other four 
members, declining to advance, withdrew from 
self-support and turned back to subsidy under 
the Board. ‘‘The seven are now in the ‘Refriger¬ 
ator/ the four cosy in the Chinese corner.” 

I would have severed my formal connection with 
the Board soon after sending my tract to their 
officers, but I was waiting to confer with Brother 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. H3 

Herring of Shanghai, who had become in favor 
of self-support and church missions, through the 
agency of the Board. He came to Tung Chow 
for the purpose of conference regarding the mat¬ 
ter in the fore part of February. He thought 
the new departure could be worked, through the 
approval and agency of the Board; I thought 
otherwise, and that it would be far better to cut 
entirely loose from the Board system—he said 
he would start home early in the Spring to lay 
his plan before the Board and see what would 
be their decision. Though I believed and hoped 
that his proposal would be rejected, I agreed to 
postpone my formal withdrawal till I heard the 
result of his efforts in Richmond. But the Board 
forestalled my withdrawal by dropping my name 
without notification, from their roll of mission¬ 
aries, on account of the issue of my tract Church¬ 
es, to the Front,” at their meeting on the first 
Monday in April, 1892. This arbitrary action 
was taken some time before Bro. Herring s ar¬ 
rival in Richmond. Dr. Tupper, the secretary, 
informed me of the fact in a short letter, dated 
April 7, 1892. I had resigned all pecuniary 
claims three years before and my connection was 
only formal, retained on my wife’s account, who 
at the time had not reached the convictions which 
moved my action in advocating church missions, 
although she had fully espoused the self-support 
doctrines as early as the latter part of 1883. I 


114 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

made no reply to the Board’s notification of their 
action, because it did not seem to require a reply. 
The relation was formed in the days of my youth 
in ignorance of its import. It didn’t fit my Bap¬ 
tist mind and it was a relief to see it come to an 
end. I never had any personal difficulties with the 
Board—none whatever. All the ostracism which 
I have been called upon to endure since 1885 has 
grown out of my public attitude regarding the 
necessity of native self-support and church or 
gospel missions. 

The Richmond Board, like every other Foreign 
Mission Board, is unable to tolerate such an atti¬ 
tude in any missionary who may attempt to carry 
these principles into practice; because they can 
allow no such freedom to the converts abroad 
or to the churches at home. Of course not, for 
the operation of these two principles together 
takes the foundation from under the Board sys¬ 
tem and leaves it a wreck. This, in short, is 
the gist of the matter, the origin of all my difficul¬ 
ties. The prevalence of my views on these two 
points is essential, in my belief, to the preserva¬ 
tion of our Baptist type of Christianity, and I must 
advocate them. I can suffer for them, but I can¬ 
not surrender them. I must continue to cry, 
Down with the Board system and subsidy. Up 
with the churches at home and native self-support 
in all mission fields as the only way to preserve 
our Christian religion from corruption and ruin. 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 11$ 

I must thus cry, regardless of consequences to 
myself. The purity and growth of my Master’s 
religion are of far more value to me than personal 
comforts and worldly reputation. I am thus 
fortified against all assaults, even against the 
terrors of the “Refrigerator.” The Lord said 
to Paul, and through him to me, “My grace is 
sufficient for thee; for my power is made perfect 
in weakness.” The rightfulness of a cause, not 
its immediate success, should be the criterion of 
our faith and action. 

The Board did not drop Mrs. Crawford’s name 
along with mine, evidently hoping to retain her 
connection with them. But in this they were 
badly disappointed. The following is a copy of 
her withdrawal from the Board: 

Tung Chow, July 25, 1892. 

Dear Dr. Tupper: 

Since seeing your letter of April 7, in¬ 
forming my husband that on account of 
the publication of his tract, “Churches, to the 
Front,” his name has been removed from the roll 
of missionaries, I have been waiting to know what 
disposition has been made of mine. By the mail 
just in, I see from the Foreign Mission Journal 
that my name has been retained. I now write to 
ask that it may also be erased, and that, at the 
next meeting of the Board, the relations and the 
responsibilities hitherto existing between that body 
and myself may terminate. 


Il6 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

Though henceforth identifying myself fully 
with the Gospel Mission movement, it is our de¬ 
sire to live and labor in most cordial, fraternal 
relations with all our Baptist brotherhood. We 
expect to continue our work for the Master here 
as members of the Tung Chow Baptist church, 
as in the past. The Board is welcome to the 
result of these labors. We shall leave them with 
God and be content. It will also be our care and 
study to keep the unity of the Spirit in the 
bond of peace, both among missionaries and 
the natives. It is not possible for us to 
transfer to others, the personal respect and 
confidence of the community which we have 
acquired by nearly thirty years of going in and 
out among those for whom we have laid down 
more than our lives many times. We shall, as 
heretofore, try always to use these for no selfish 
ends, earnestly striving to bring souls to Christ 
and to build them up in the faith as God may give 
us opportunity. 

With our best wishes for yourself and all of 
the members of the Board; and with high appre¬ 
ciation of all your labors and anxieties on our 
behalf, through our many years of service in this 
heathen land, believe me as ever, 

Yours sincerely, 

M. F. Crawford. 

Some weeks after the above letter was mailed 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 117 

to Dr. Tupper, Mrs. Crawford sent the following 
letter for publication in the Alabama Baptist, 
which appeared in its October 6th issue, probably 
some days before her letter of resignation was 
presented to the Board by Dr. Tupper. It stands 
in the Alabama Baptist under the caption: 

“letter from china ” 
and reads as follows: 

Brethren Editors:—It is due the Baptists of 
Alabama that I should explain some recent events 
of our missionary life. I need not go further back 
than my husband’s visit to the United States in 
1885. He made this visit under a sense of duty, 
and at his own expense, for the purpose of try¬ 
ing to induce our Baptist Boards and 
churches, South and North, to consider some se¬ 
rious evils connected with our foreign mission 
methods, and to urge them to adopt, if possible, 
what is called the “Native self-supporting policy.” 
This policy is, in short—teach Christ and let ad¬ 
juncts alone; or, as Dr. Ashmore says: “Give 
the heathen the gospel and let them develop their 
own civilization.” In other words, it means to 
evangelize the world without the accompanying 
inducements of foreign money in employing 
native preachers and Bible women, in building 
chapels, carrying on schools, hospitals and other 
charitable institutions which should have a natural 


Il8 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

growth on the native soil. Mr. Crawford’s “self- 
support” ideas began upon our arrival at Hong 
Kong, early in 1852, from what we there heard 
regarding the ways of certain “native assistants,” 
and they grew with his years and experience until 
they reached their present form. A careful study 
of scriptural principles and methods of work, with 
a determination to do God’s will wherever recog¬ 
nized, at all hazards, also led him, stage by stage, 
to the conclusions set forth in his recent tract, 
“Churches, to the Front.” The publication of 
this tract, as he anticipated, caused the Foreign 
Mission Board to drop his name from the roll of 
their missionaries. The views therein set forth 
did not originate, as insinuated in the May num¬ 
ber of the Foreign Mission Journal, from wrath 
engendered by the failure of his efforts to intro¬ 
duce the “self-support” policy, or from any per¬ 
sonal grievance—for he has none—but from many 
years of observation and connection with mission 
operations, and deep-seated Baptist convictions, 
as clearly stated on the twelfth page of the tract. 
To challenge the scripturalness, wisdom or prac¬ 
ticability of his position is legitimate and open 
to all; but, without proof, to impugn his motives 
and turn aside to personal attacks and inuendoes, 
as various persons have been doing, is, to say the 
least, not brotherly. 

As lately said in the Baptist and Reflector, 
“freedom of the press is one thing, license an- 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 119 

other”—and so it may be of speech. When 
Christian men feel at liberty to defeat a measure 
by making such attacks upon its supporters, it is 
surely time to call a halt and study the golden 
rule. Because a man advocates new or unpopu¬ 
lar views, may he therefore be called “half-crazy,” 
“off in mind,” “crank,” “erratic” and the like? 
May brethren in this way answer his arguments 
by trying to undermine the confidence of the 
brotherhood in his motives andpersonal character? 
Surely such “campaign tricks” should not pre¬ 
vail among the children of God. Mr. Crawford 
and the other faithful missionaries of whom 
these harsh things are now being circulated are, 
as they believe, each from his own point 
of view, bravely contending, at the sacri¬ 
fice of their own interests, for great principles, in¬ 
volving the wellbeing of the church of God 
and the success of foreign missions. They 
criticise methods, not individual men. If 
their views are wrong, let them be met by argu¬ 
ments and facts, not by insinuations and attempts 
to suppress freedom of speech. 

Mr. Crawford determined, at the beginning of 
his efforts for reform, not to turn aside to defend 
himself under any provocation, but to keep stead¬ 
ily on in pushing the principles for which he was 
contending. 

Early in 1889, he wrote the secretary of the 
Board, resigning his salary and responsibilities 


120 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


of the work, which he felt unable to bear. That he 
“has since continued to associate himself with the 
missionaries of the Board” (as charged in the F. 
M. Journal, T. P. C.) is gladly admitted. With 
whom else should he associate, but with Baptist 
brethren of the same faith and order, laboring in 
the same field? That he has tried to “direct the 
policy” of these missionaries (as charged in the 
Journal, T. P. C.) is not true, unless the free ex¬ 
pression of his opinions on matters of public con¬ 
cern—a right sacred to every true man—be so 
construed, for he has never since then voted on 
a single question coming before the mission, and 
he has no means whatever of putting pressure 
upon them, even if he so desired. 

After the publication of “Churches, to the 
Front,” Dr. Tupper wrote Mr. C. a kindly ex¬ 
pressed letter—as his letters have always been— 
informing him that his name had been dropped 
from the list of missionaries, where it had re¬ 
mained by courtesy, since his retirement from 
responsibility in the Spring of 1889. I was in 
doubt as to what would be done with my name, 
and waited until the reception, a few days ago, 
of the Foreign Mission Journal. Seeing that his 
name was taken off (the list) while mine re¬ 
mained, I wrote the Board as follows (see Mrs. 
Crawford’s letter of withdrawal from the Board 
copied on the previous pages 115-116, which, 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


121 


though in the Alabama Baptist, need not be copied 
here). 

As stated (in the letter) above, it is our pur¬ 
pose to remain and labor in this field as hereto¬ 
fore, not for personal convenience, but because 
the necessities of the work demand it. Should 
duty call, we should not hesitate to remove to the 
ends of the earth. Should we and the Bosticks 
“seek some other field of labor/’ as suggested 
in the May Journal, there would be only one man 
left, and he, as yet, unable to enter upon the work 
for want of sufficient knowledge of the language, 
to shepherd the little flocks and preach to the 
heathen in the regions of Tung Chow and 
Hwang-hien. This would be an irreparable loss 
to the denomination. By the blessing of God and 
the support of the churches, either directly or 
through the Board, we all hope to remain at our 
posts and pray to be reinforced at an early day. 
In laboring for the Lord, does it matter whether 
missionaries are sustained in one way or the 
other? Surely the Baptist denomination has not 
yet become so consolidated, centralized and con¬ 
trolled that a matter of this kind can make a 
breach of fellowship between them. 

It is not my purpose to enter the controver¬ 
sial arena. As hitherto, I shall bend my en¬ 
ergies for the presenting of Christ as the way of 
life to these perishing people. At the same time 
I do not ignore the fact that I owe some duties to 


122 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


those on the other side of the Pacific, and I will 
not shrink from speaking when it seems to me 
right to do so. 

We are thankful to say that we do not need to 
ask pecuniary aid for ourselves, as we have an in¬ 
come sufficient to maintain us in the simple style 
to which we have adhered throughout our forty 
years of missionary life. We are both as good, 
as sane, as orthodox and worthy, as in the days 
when we were “so much honored and beloved.” 

M. F. Crawford. 

Tung Chow, Aug., 1892. 

Soon after the acceptance of Mrs. Crawford’s 
resignation, the Foreign Mission Board, through 
Treasurer Dr. H. H. Harris, came out with a 
long article in the F. M. Journal, designed to jus¬ 
tify their course towards me, by presenting it in 
the best light possible for themselves, through 
the aid of many “cute” representations. This 
article was copied entire into the Alabama Bap¬ 
tist. 

It reads as follows: 

“mrs. crawford's resignation/' 

The retirement of this most excellent lady and 
missionary from her connection with the Foreign 
Mission Board will bring sorrow to many hearts. 
For many years she has done faithful and efficient 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


123 


work, and on account of that work as well as the 
beauty of her Christian character, she has held and 
will ever hold a very warm place in the hearts of 
all Southern Baptists. It has been well known to 
many that it was not Mrs. Crawford’s wish to 
withdraw from connection with the Board, and her 
letter of resignation assigns as the reason for her 
now doing so, the fact that her husband’s name 
had been dropped from the role of missionaries. 
(?) This makes it necessary that we should let 
the Baptist public know why the Board dropped 
Dr. Crawford’s name from the roll.” (Dr. Tup- 
per, corresponding secretary, in his letter inform¬ 
ing me of the fact, said it was because I published 
the tract, Churches, to the Front. C.) “This will 
require the relation (With twistifications. C.) of 
some facts concerning Dr. Crawford and the 
Board, which we think will clearly show to the 
brethren that in their treatment of him, the Board 
erred, if at all, on the side of leniency.” (What 
worse could they do than “gag” me first, then 
put me into the “refrigerator,’’cry “crank,” etc. ? 
C.) 

It will be remembered by many that in 1885 Dr. 
Crawford came to this country to try and induce 
the Missionary Union and the Foreign Mission 
Board (of Richmond) to adopt certain views 
entertained by him and, so far as we know, at 
that time by him alone, of all our missionaries— 
with reference to the amount of salary to be paid 


124 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


missionaries, the non-employment of native help¬ 
ers, the non-use of schools; in a word, the non¬ 
help of Christians in any way. (By Board funds. 
C.) The Board gave him very patient hearing 
and treated him in every way (Including the pas¬ 
sage of their “gag” resolution with its implied 
threat. C.) very courteously, but did not deem 
it wise to adopt his views as its fixed policy and 
force them on other missionaries! (Sic.) 

In its report to the Convention in 1886 (at 
Montgomery) it thus records its action as taken 
in Board meeting (October, 1885) embodied in 
the report of a Special Committee appointed to 
confer with Dr. Crawford. 

(That Report, as adopted by the Board, has 
been copied in full on pages 59-62 of this essay, 
where it can be seen. C.) 

This action (of the Board) the Convention 
endorsed after the Corresponding Secretary of the 
Board had requested and obtained for Dr. Craw¬ 
ford the privilege of occupying all the time he 
desired in enforcing his views on the Conven¬ 
tion.” (Yes, after the effort, in the basement of 
the church to prevent me from speaking, had 
failed. C.) “It has been regarded as an open secret 
that Dr. Crawford became much offended because 
he was not given such recognition at the meet¬ 
ing of the General Association of Virginia, in 
June, 1886, (In Nov., 1885 at the Second Baptist 
Church, Richmond. C.) as he thought he was en- 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 125 

titled to, and that he attributed it to the Board, 
which was as innocent of the matter as a babe. 
(Sic, but some leading members were not inno¬ 
cent of it! C.) “The pastor of the church, (a mem¬ 
ber of the Board) with which the Association met 
made the arrangements for the services in which 
Dr. Crawford felt himself slighted, and we have 
heard that pastor say that he alone was respons¬ 
ible for any seeming neglect of Dr. Crawford! 
(Sic.) “The Board politely (Sic! by their gag 
resolutions against my protest. C.) requested Dr. 
Crawford to return to his field, (And not to 
ventilate his views of mission matters, deftly 
left out here. C.) from which he had come with¬ 
out SO' much as a notification to the Board. (The 
Board dropped me without previous “notification,” 
contrary to all rule, and cut off my head without 
either notification or trial! C.) 

This he declined doing, and spent some 
months going over the country making speeches, 
in reporting which, not a few brethren (of a cer¬ 
tain sort, C.) wrote the Board that they were 
“doing incalculable harm to the cause.” (of sub¬ 
sidy. C.) When he got ready, he returned (to 
China). From that time until his letter in (the 
spring of) 1889, withdrawing in part from con¬ 
nection with the Board, Dr. Crawford held no 
communication, so far as we have been able to 
learn, with the body whose appointment he held, 
(and their “gag resolution,” also. C.) and from 


126 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

whose treasury he was drawing his salary. At 
about the time of writing the letter alluded to 
above, he came to this country again (to Texas 
only) leaving the Board to find out his presence 
from newspaper report, staying as long as he 
wanted to, held no communication with the 
Board (the gag on his mouth preventing. C.) and 
he went back as quietly as he came. Some one 
will feel like asking, why did the Board endure 
such conduct? I answer, indisposition to force 
an issue with an aged missionary who had so long 
worked with it ( 57 c) and profound respect for 
the noble woman who bore his name. In 1889, he 
sent the following communication to the Board, 
which was published in the Foreign Mission 
Journal, of August of that year. (This “com¬ 
munication” appears here, but it need not be re¬ 
peated in this place, as it has been copied on pages 
90-94.) When this letter was received, a ques¬ 
tion arose in the office; what does this letter 
mean ? Is it a resignation, or not ? Is Dr. Craw¬ 
ford still a missionary of the Board, or not? If 
not, shall his name be retained as one? Again, 
the officers of the Board, influenced as they had 
more than once been, by an aged missionary and 
his wife, decided to do him honor (Sic) by re¬ 
taining his name, and upheld themselves in that 
determination by this sentence in his letter: “How¬ 
ever, I do not mean, by this course of action, to 
resign or sever my connection with the mission 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 127 

or the Board.” So his name remained on our list, 
and did remain until the appearance of his tract, 
“Churches, to the Front,” in which he indulged 
in various and sundry charges against all Boards 
in general and against those of the Missionary 
Union and the Southern Baptist Convention in 
particular, and said, among other things: “For 
several years past, I have prefered to support my¬ 
self from a small private income, rather than seem, 
by taking a salary, to sanction either the prin¬ 
ciples or the practices of the system.” 

This language, together with much else of a 
similar kind, led the Board to conclude that Dr. 
Crawford ought to have felt, and the Board cer¬ 
tainly did feel, that complete severance of con¬ 
nection between him and it, was the only proper 
thing under the circumstances. (And without no¬ 
tification or trial of any kind! C.) It is perfectly 
natural for Mrs. Crawford to take the step she 
has, and while we all feel very sad at the part¬ 
ing, self-respect on the part of the Board and the 
respect which was due from it to the Convention 
which created it, demanded the action it took in 
Dr. Crawford’s case, even though that involved 
the loss of so valuable and esteemed a worker 
as Mrs. Crawford. 

The meaning of all this tirade for the eyes of 
the brotherhood is, that Dr. Crawford wouldn’t 
play toady for a salary, and would advocate “non- 


128 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


subsidy and church missions,” regardless of con¬ 
sequences. The Board, like Rome, forgives all 
sins, except sins against the Board. I would ad¬ 
vise young preachers to keep their necks out of all 
such nooses. 

I felt no inclination to reply to the above tirade, 
but as Mrs. Crawford felt inclined to do so I gave 
my consent. She sent her article to the Alabama 
Baptist, but it would not publish it. It was then 
sent to a friend in Alabama, with a request 
to have it published in some secular paper with 
extra copies on separate slips for private circula¬ 
tion. It appeared in the “Whig and Observer” of 
Eutaw, Green County, Ala., together with her 
friend's letter to the editor, and the whole reads 
as follows : 

Editors Whig and Observer: 

In the November issue for 1892 of the Foreign 
Mission Journal, Richmond, Va., appeared an 
editorial under the caption, “Mrs. Crawford's 
Resignation.” This was copied into the Alabama 
Baptist of November 17, 1892. It was so full of 
erroneous statements that Mrs. Crawford wrote, 
and sent, last January, a reply for the Baptist, 
which has failed to appear. I have secured a copy 
of said reply through my sister, Mrs. Bostick, who 
is very anxious that your readers, many of whom 
knew Mrs. Crawford, should see her statement. 
Would you, therefore, kindly insert the enclosed 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 129 

article with this explanation ? I beg, too, that your 
Baptist readers will study carefully this reply, 
referring, if possible, to the original article, either 
in the Journal or the Baptist. Trusting you may 
see your way to insert it and thanking you in 
advance, I remain, 

Yours truly, 

H. S. Thornton. 

“Mrs. Crawford's Resignation” Again. 

For the Alabama Baptist (refused, C.). 
Brother Editor: 

May I briefly point out some erroneous state¬ 
ments contained in an article under the above cap¬ 
tion, copied from the Foreign Mission Journal 
in your issue of November 17, 1892, which 
reached me on the 6th inst. ? This I feel is due, 
both to your readers and to ourselves. 

1. The writer of the Journal article says: 
“Mrs. Crawford's letter of resignation assigns as 
the reason for her now doing so, the fact that her 
husband's name had been dropped from the roll 
of missionaries." By reference to my letter, the 
reader will see that it does not assign this or any 
other fact as the reason for my resignation. The 
explanation of the matter is this: The hasty 
action of the Board in dropping Mr. Crawford's 
name upon the appearance of his tract, “Churches, 
to the Front," forestalled his resignation and 
postponed mine for awhile, as I thought my name 


130 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

had also been dropped. We were then waiting 
to hear the result of Brother Herring’s interview 
with the Board, intending to resign together, 
should that not be successful. Brother Herring 
represented our views in the main, and empha¬ 
sized his belief in them, as is well known, by 
withdrawing from the Board. 

2. Mr. Crawford did not go “to the United 
States in 1886 to advocate his views of mission 
policy,” but in 1885, and at his own expense. Nor 
was “he then alone of all our missionaries in these 
views,” as a letter written by one of them in that 
year, now before me, testifies. Neither has he ever 
advocated the non-help of native Christians in 
any way,” as the Journal asserts, but only non¬ 
help from mission funds. Where aid is given 
them, he would let it come from the missionary’s 
private purse as man to man. The former method 
is demoralizing. (The latter healthy. C.). 

3. The writer further says: “The Board gave 
Dr. Crawford very patient hearing, . . . but did 
not deem it wise to adopt his views as its fixed 
policy and force them on other missionaries.” 
(Sic.) There is a plain insinuation here that 
Mr. Crawford wished to force his views on the 
missionaries. This insinuation is the reverse of 
the facts in the case, as his proposals made to the 
Board’s Committee (and to the Board) in writing, 
and still preserved, plainly prove. They close as 
follows: “The above proposals do not contem- 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. IJI 

plate the sudden breaking up of any existing en¬ 
terprise, the repudiation of any existing obliga¬ 
tion, or the disturbance of any missionary's exist¬ 
ing work. They would make no ex post facto law 
and they should take effect on those now in the 
field by their own approval and consent, at such 
time as may seem most convenient to them." 

4. The writer also tells us: “It has become an 
open secret that Dr. Crawford became offended 
because he was not given such recognition at the 
General Association of Virginia, in June, 1886, 
as he thought he was entitled to; that he attrib¬ 
uted it to the Board, which was innocent of the 
matter as a babe." (Sic.) Mr. Crawford says 
that the unmentioned place of the meeting here 
referred to was the Second Baptist Church of 
Richmond, and the time not “June, 1886," but 
November, 1885. He has not been in the state 
of Virginia since January of 1886. He also says 
that he never attributed the treatment he and his 
cause there received to the action of the Board 
as a body, but he did then, and does still, at¬ 
tribute it to the action of certain individual mem¬ 
bers of the Board. He thinks they had him sup¬ 
pressed notwithstanding his strong claims to 
recognition at the missionary mass meeting of the 
General Association, to prevent his views from 
coming before the brethren. Whether the “pastor 
of the church with whom the body met"—who 
was then a member of the Board—“was alone 


132 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

responsible for the seeming neglect/’ Mr. Craw¬ 
ford is unable to say. (He takes it with salt. C.) 
It is the custom, however, for a special committee 
to arrange for the services on such occasions, 
and he was spoken to on the subject by another 
person. 

5. Again, the writer states: “The Board 
politely requested Dr. Crawford to return to his 
field.” (Sic.) Their report in the minutes of the 
Convention for 1886 also says: “Dr. Crawford, 
having ended his work with the Board, was kind¬ 
ly requested to return to his field of labor.” The 
action here referred to took place in Mr. Craw¬ 
ford’s presence, and over his solemn protest, as 
unbaptistic, etc. It is dated November 25, 1885, 
and reads as follows : 

“Resolved, That in the opinion of this Board, 
our brother, Dr. Crawford, should not continue 
further discussion before our Southern churches, 
of plans for the conduct of missions, and further, 
that it would be gratifying to the Board if he 
should be able to return, at some early date, to 
his work in China.” (Behold how this gag reso¬ 
lution, this suppress-information effort of the 
Board is presented to the Baptist brotherhood, 
both in the minutes of the Convention and in this 
Journal article! C.) 

This “polite request” was politely declined by 
Mr. Crawford. The “kind” attempt to take con¬ 
trol of his convictions of duty to God and the 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


133 


churches, who had so long supported him as their 
missionary in a foreign land, could by no means 
be accepted. (It contains an implied threat of 
extermination, which has been zealously executed 
up to the present writing, but without entire suc¬ 
cess. C.) After applying to the Board, through 
one of its members, to withdraw the embarrassing 
resolution, and quietly awaiting until it was re¬ 
fused, Mr. Crawford began his ten months' tour 
among the churches. He went bound in the spirit 
to fulfill the purpose for which he had crossed the 
ocean, at great personal sacrifice to us both, to 
present for their consideration matters of vital im¬ 
portance to the cause of God, both at home and 
abroad. He was, with two exceptions, received 
cordially everywhere, many expressing strong 
sympathy with his views. This firm assertion of 
his rights to discuss mission policies before the 
churches is the cause of the ostracism which he 
has since endured. Baptist missionaries have 
the same right to freedom of speech as other Bap¬ 
tist ministers and are subject to the same laws 
of Christian courtesy and restraint. Mr. Craw¬ 
ford believes he has always treated the Board with 
due respect, and regards every insinuation to the 
contrary as unjust. As said elsewhere, he has 
no personal controversy to maintain before the 
public, but is ready to endure all things for the 
truth. 

6 . The writer says (in an omitted portion of 


134 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

his article. C.) “Mrs. Crawford has been pleased 
to anticipate by publication in the newspapers any 
action the Board might take on her resignation.” 
It was my wish not to anticipate the action of the 
Board. By design, my letter of resignation was 
despatched July 25, 1892, so as to reach the 
Board before its first meeting on the first Mon¬ 
day in September, while my articles for the papers 
were mailed in August, so as to reach their destin¬ 
ation late in September. I could not foresee that 
the Board would take no action on the subject 
until the nth of October. 

7. There are other points in the Journal article 
which may be noticed. Mr. Crawford failed to 
notify the Board of his intended visit to the 
United States, in 1885, because delayed, (and 
therefore undecided) by the French-China war; 
but he did so upon his arrival in Texas. He again 
left here (Tung Chow) suddenly at the order 
of his physician, in the spring of 1889, but by 
Mr. Crawford’s request I notified Dr. Tupper 
before he sailed from Shanghai. In both cases he 
bore his own expenses. He has always sent in 
his annual report with the other missionaries, and 
courteously answered all official letters up to last 
spring, when his name was dropped by the Board. 

Yours faithfully, 

M. F. Crawford. 

Tung Chow, China, Jan. 14, 1893. 

(P. S.—In the Whig and Observer.) 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. I 35 

‘‘You will see that the above article for the Al¬ 
abama Baptist points out only sixteen of the mis¬ 
statements in the Foreign Mission Journal’s edi¬ 
torial, leaving several others unmentioned. It calls 
no attention to the particular animus, bad taste 
and grave injustice in thus arraigning Mr. Craw¬ 
ford before the public long after his connection 
with the Board had terminated. Nor does my 
article draw attention to the fact that the Board 
had dropped his name—and with it virtually mine 
also—regardless of our age and long service, 
without a word of warning, specific charge or 
show of trial. Mr. C. has never written a word 
on these matters, either for the Board or for the 
newspapers, but has suffered in silence for the 
sake of the truth which he holds in common with 
many other Baptists and goes on with his work 
the same as ever. M. F. C.” 























LETTER VIII. 


The Board made no reply to my letter of March 
Joth, 1889, resigning my salary; neither did they 
write to me on any subject until they notified me 
that my name had been dropped from their roll 
of missionaries on account of the issue of the 
tract, “Churches, to the Front.” Some time after 
this they asked me in regard to their property in 
Tung Chow and adjoining stations. In reply I 
gave them a full statement concerning it. 

My dwelling house had been purchased and 
repaired at a cost of 2,656 Chefoo Taels from my 
private funds during the “Secession war/’* as the 
Board was without funds for the purpose. But 
they entered into a written agreement with me, to 
allow me rent or interest on my money, until it 
was refunded by them; then the title deed was to 
be transfered to them. They had prefered to pay 
the moderate interest on the money rather than 
take over the house. In April, 1893, a year after 
my name had been dropped, J. C. Williams, the 
treasurer of the Board, wrote asking me if I would 
be willing to keep the house and release the 
Board from their agreement to refund the money 

*Soon after the Secession war, before the Board was 
able to pay even our salaries.—M. F. C, 

137 



I 38 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

and take over the property, stating, at the same 
time, that the Board would not need it for their 
work in Tung Chow. To this letter I replied, 
saying that I did not wish to own property in 
Tung Chow, and that the house would be given 
the Board whenever they wished to take posses¬ 
sion. For some time nothing was heard on the 
subject. We were quite undecided as to the de¬ 
tails of our future course, as they were somewhat 
dependent upon the course the Board should pur¬ 
sue. At this time the North China Baptist mis¬ 
sionaries were supposed to be a unit in favor of 
native self-support. The native Christians, with 
the exception of some who had been trained in 
our mission schools, were adjusting themselves to 
it. Brother King had written to the Board 
urging them to set aside the North China field 
for self-support experiment, and we hoped they 
would see the wisdom of it. 

During the winter of 1892-93, we heard vague 
rumors that the Board would return Dr. Hart¬ 
well to Tung Chow, who had been dismissed 
from there and residing in America for the last 
eighteen years. He was a noted subsidizer, hence 
we all knew what his return would mean. Again 
we heard that he would not be sent back to 
Tung Chow. About this time the Board asked if 
the North China missionaries would be willing 
to be transfered to some other field. I don't re¬ 
member their answer. I was thus kept in sus- 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


139 


pense as to my future course, Brother Bostick 
as well as myself. Brother League of Ping-tu 
urged us to go westward with him, as he believed 
that the field would be retained by the Board for 
subsidizing efforts. Our perplexity, however, was 
cut short in June, ’93, by seeing in the published 
proceedings of the Convention at Nashville that 
“Dr. Hartwell had been appointed to North China 
and would sail in the autumn with ten of the 
most promising pastors in the South”! This 
meant, to us, that the Board had determined to 
crush out native self-support and its missionary 
advocates regardless of cost or consequences; that 
their policy was rule or ruin. This decided the 
question for us and the Bosticks. We would 
leave the field around Tung Chow to them with 
the results of all our many years of earnest toil. 
It was a very hard thing for me to do. I had long 
and deep strugglings of mind and conscience be¬ 
fore I could feel at liberty to abandon my little 
flock to the corrupting influence of the subsidy 
system. Nothing but sheer necessity—the neces¬ 
sity of inability to defend them—caused me to 
give them up. 

The Board gave no intimation of their purpose 
to suddenly take possession of our house and turn 
us out into the street, as a punishment for daring 
to indulge views of mission work differing from 
theirs. 

In the latter part of July we learned incident- 


140 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

ally, through a letter from Canton, that Dr. 
Hartwell was to sail from San Francisco for Tung 
Chow, not in the ‘‘late fall,” as reported in the 
proceedings of the Convention at Nashville, but 
on the third day of July, and that we might expect 
him very soon. The last word we had received 
from the Board was to the effect that they would 
probably not need the house at all. Early in 
August, Dr. Hartwell reached Chefoo, our port, 
and sent a note informing me that he had arrived 
with authority from the Board to pay for and 
take possession of my dwelling house, and that 
he would soon be in Tung Chow for the purpose. 
He went first to the mission meeting at Hwang- 
hien. He was authorized by it to occupy our 
house, and Miss Barton the one in which the 
Bosticks were living. 

Dr. Hartwell then came immediately to my 
house and offered to pay the money due and take 
possession. His proposal was at once accepted and 
we both hurried to vacate our homes as rapidly 
as possible—to go we knew not where, but God 
knew. Intending to go somewhere into the in¬ 
terior of the Province, if God should open the 
way, it was necessary to get rid of our household 
furniture, the accumulation of more than forty. 
years. As the few missionaries at Tung Chow 
were supplied, there seemed only the forlorn hope 
of selling it to the Chinese. The various articles 
were priced and labeled, and the day of sale 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. I4I 

published. We were astonished to find the 
people seized with a desire for foreign furniture 
and it went off with great rapidity. By the 13th 
of September, we and the Bosticks were ready 
to depart, Dr. Hartwell being at Miss Moore’s 
house ready to enter the moment we were gone— 
also offering to employ certain of our church 
members even before we had departed, thus taking 
them into his service. We went first to Ping-tu 
and stopped with Brother League, the Bosticks 
with Brother Sears. As soon as the roads would 
permit, Bostick and myself set out together to 
the southwest in search of a place of residence 
and a suitable field of labor. We tried all the 
fall and early part of the winter to obtain houses 
in the valley of the Hwai river, lying between the 
cities of Chu-ching and Ku Chow, but without 
success—the aristocracy of the region making it 
impossible for us. Being thus disappointed in our 
efforts, we rented a house together in the 
western suburb of Ping-tu and settled down for 
the winter, intending to make further efforts in 
other regions with the opening of spring. While 
here at Ping-tu, on the 24th of December, Breth¬ 
ren Herring, Royall, Blalock and Crocker arrived 
from America to join with us in what was by this 
time known as the Gospel Mission movement. 
Brother and Mrs. League were already into it 
heart and soul. Brother King and Miss Fannie 
Knight were also ready to cast in their lots with 


142 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

the movement and look direct to the churches for 
support. Brother League, in the early part of 
’94, photographed the group of Gospel Mission¬ 
aries—twelve in number—eight men and four 
women—all homeless. 

During the winter of our stay in Ping-tu, I 
prepared the booklet called “The Crisis of the 
Churches. A collection of earnest articles and ex¬ 
tracts from earnest men, on matters of vital con¬ 
cern to Baptists,” and sent the manuscript to Prof. 
H. T. Cook of Greenville, S. C., for publication. 
It contained twenty-two articles and extracts from 
articles written by various leading Baptists, on 
subjects entering into the Gospel Mission move¬ 
ment. In short, it is a kind of thesaurus of its 
underlying principles, and met the approval of all 
the Gospel Mission missionaries then at Ping-tu. 
It contains 175 pages, besides a preface by Prof. 
Cook. 

In the month of February, 1894, Brethren Her¬ 
ring and King made a journey towards the west¬ 
ern end of the Province in search of a suitable 
and unoccupied field for the work of the Gospel 
missionaries, while Brother Bostick and myself 
were searching for one on its southwestern border. 
Herring and King becoming greatly pleased with 
the valley in the region of Tai-An-Fu, Brother 
King hastily returned to Ping-tu to inform the 
rest of us regarding it, and to ascertain whether 
we would all be willing to abandon other prospec- 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 143 

tive regions and settle in the one they had found, 
as they thought in every respect suitable. We un¬ 
animously agreed to do so as soon as possible. 

Brother Blalock joined Herring at once in Tai- 
an City. They took up their quarters at the na¬ 
tive inn in the western suburb. King went first to 
Mung-yin and then to Shintai, a large country 
town about sixty miles to the southeast of Tai-an 
City, and stopped in a native inn where Bro. 
League agreed to join him as soon as he could re¬ 
turn the house which he had rented in Kioo 
Chow City and make his arrangements to do so. 

On the 14th of April, myself and Brother 
Crocker set out upon a wheelbarrow for Lai Wu 
City, a country town about forty miles east of 
Tai-an City. After a slow and wearisome journey 
of two weeks, we reached the town and found it 
lying on the southern border of a rich, beautiful 
valley. I was well pleased with the location; but, 
to my sad disappointment, I was unable to se¬ 
cure lodgings in any of its inns, the people show¬ 
ing themselves very rude and hostile to all 
foreigners. The Catholic people had caused some 
trouble in the region. We then attempted to stop 
at an inn in various market towns in the valley 
without success. We could take a meal or spend 
a night at an inn without any special difficulty, 
but as soon as we attempted to stop for a few 
days’ rest, crowds of rude gazers would, from 
early morning to a late hour at night, push them- 


144 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

selves into our quarters in spite of the keeper’s 
most earnest efforts to prevent it. As soon as the 
people began to have the least suspicion that we 
might wish to settle in their town (though we 
never even hinted such a desire) the innkeepers 
began, under the impulse of fear, to urge us to 
leave at once and we had to do so. 

By this time I was worn completely out, half 
sick with fatigue, anxiety, and worst of all, with 
feelings closely bordering on despair. It is 
always hard, very hard, for me to surrender a 
well-considered purpose. Just as we were about 
to leave the last inn, one at which we had at¬ 
tempted to remain for a few days’ rest, I received 
a letter from Brother Herring in answer 
to one I had sent him, saying that he had that day 
succeeded in renting a dwelling house in the 
southern suburb of Tai-an City, and inviting us 
to come at once to his place, where we could be 
free from the rabble. 

This news was to me like “the shadow of a 
great rock in a weary land.” 

We settled our bill at the inn—an enormous 
price—put our baggage on to the wheelbarrow, 
engaged the letter bearer to help pull the heavy, 
clumsy machine, and off we started, late in the 
afternoon, with a joyful heart, the distance being 
about ninety li, or thirty English miles. 

We arrived about noon the next day 
and put up at the inn, taking the rooms 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 145 

which Herring and Blalock had just va¬ 
cated for their own rented house on the 
opposite side of the street. As they had no 
place to accommodate us, we remained at the inn, 
the keeper protecting us from the rabble, an un¬ 
speakable boon to my over-jaded body and mind. 
The next day Brother Herring’s teacher came to 
the inn offering, as middle man, to rent me an 
old, large and much dilapidated oil mill adjoin¬ 
ing the brethren’s place, at a reasonable price, also 
with immediate possession. It was not my desire 
or intention to settle at Tai-an, but at Lai Wu if 
possible. After consulting with Bro. Herring 
and considering the difficulties of obtaining a 
house at Lai Wu, or elsewhere, I concluded to 
take the oil mill place as a temporary home. It 
had several good rooms in it, but would require 
extensive repairs before fit for occupation of a 
family. So the bargain was consummated, six 
months’ rent paid the owner in advance, and the 
next morning, May 15th, myself and Brother 
Crocker took possession. Thus, by the blessing of 
God, we homeless missionaries had secured two 
dwelling houses in our chosen field of labor. In 
a few days I began to make the needed repairs, 
and wrote at once to Mrs. Crawford at Ping-tu, 
to get ready to join me as soon as possible. But 
before my letter had time to reach her, opposition 
to our settling here was set agoing by certain 
foreign-haters. Placards were posted and flags 


146 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

raised forbidding the people to sell us food or do 
our work, exhorting them to drive us away, etc. 
My landlord, either becoming or pretending to 
become alarmed, ordered all of my carpenters and 
masons to leave, which they did in spite of my 
protest. Stones were frequently thrown against 
our doors; rude boys, sticking their heads over the 
broken down walls, would curse at us. Dangers 
seemed to threaten us from many quarters and we 
passed several weeks in great anxiety. But God 
led us safely through them all. 

Mrs. Crawford, after much anxiety and delay 
on account of the hostility of which she had been 
informed by me, finally arrived on the 6th of July, 
finding the house, for the want of workmen, still 
unrepaired and in an almost uninhabitable con¬ 
dition. We were without furniture and the 
weather exceedingly hot. As an effect of all our 
difficulties, we were both soon prostrated by sick¬ 
ness and brought to the verge of death. But God 
graciously raised us up. The hostility gradually 
modified as the officials declined to give it active 
support. By the end of the fall, our health was 
quite restored, our house somewhat improved and 
all of our Gospel Mission band in the new field, 
ready to carry our principles into practice. 

I had thus reached the final step in the new 
departure. As a result I felt peculiarly happy— 
at last free, and away from all connection with the 
unscriptural system by which I had been so long 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. I 47 

and painfully hampered. Now in a new field of 
work, unclaimed by the missionaries of the Board, 
and associated with a number of choice spirits of 
like faith, convictions and aims with myself 
while others of similar type were expected soon 
to join us, the exhilaration of the situation 
seemed to renew my youth, promising to ex¬ 
tend my lease of life for an indefinite term of 
years. 

Our Gospel Mission band beginning work in 
this new field (in the spring of 1894) consisted of 
twelve persons, eight men and four women. Be¬ 
fore entering the field it was understood among 
us that we would, if possible, settle in three or 
more separate cities or country towns. In this pur¬ 
pose there was a general failure. At first, and 
after many disappointments, two houses were 
rented in the southern suburbs of Tai-an City— 
both in a dilapidated condition and lying along¬ 
side of each other, the eastern one by Brother 
Blalock and Herring, the western one by myself. 
For awhile we were considerably straitened for 
the lack of house room. But before the close of 
the year two dwellings were rented in Chi-ning, 
a large city eighty miles south of Tai-an, and 
one in Shui-pei, a large town twenty miles east 
of it. To these places a number of our band re¬ 
moved, leaving ourselves, the Bosticks and the 
Kings at Tai-an City. Around us dwelt a dense, 
ignorant, heathen and suspicious population 


148 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

always ready to become excited against us. Yet, 
by studied patience, self-control and kindness 
of manner, we gradually won our way to their 
respect and confidence to such a degree as enabled 
us to secure a hearing from many of them for 
our message of salvation. Our message was given 
them at our homes, on the streets, in the temple 
groves, along the mountain sides and in the sur¬ 
rounding villages, without money and without 
price either to them or to ourselves. On Sun¬ 
day public worship was held in two of our studies, 
in the forenoon at our place, in the afternoon at 
Brother Bostick’s place, half a mile distant. 

Through the faithful labors of all our brethren 
and sisters in the three stations, disciples were 
gathered, as the years went on, in sufficent num¬ 
bers for the organization of two small churches, 
one at Tai-an City, the other at Kwei-tei-fu. Our 
gospel work went quietly and steadily on in our 
chosen field through many indescribable difficul¬ 
ties until the summer of 1900, when we, with all 
the other missionaries and foreigners in the prov¬ 
ince, fled for our lives before the “Boxer move¬ 
ment” to Chefoo or to other open ports, where we 
found protection, accompanied by a fearful 
amount of expense and inconvenience. 

Under these circumstances I thought it better 
to return to the home-land and spend the time 
among our friends until the way was opened for 
us to resume our gospel work in China, and in the 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 149 

field from which we had fled. We sailed from 
Shanghai on October i, via Honolulu, and 
reached San Francisco on the 28th, where we re¬ 
mained till November 1, when we took the train 
for Greenville, S. C., visiting relatives and friends 
on the way. Everywhere upon the journey we had 
to talk privately and publicly, as the people were 
eager to hear about the incidents accompanying 
the terrible Boxer movement. Being thus delayed, 
we did not reach Greenville till the latter part of 
December. Here we spent the winter and spring 
most pleasantly with our friends. 

Leaving Greenville the latter part of May, we 
spent the summer and fall in the mountains of 
North Carolina, at Asheville and Shelby. Leav¬ 
ing Shelby on November 26, we set out for At¬ 
lanta, Ga., spending a few days with our friends 
in Greenville, by the way. Reaching Atlanta on 
December 2, we remained there till January 14, 
1902, when we came to Dawson, Ga., to spend a 
while with relatives. It is very pleasant to us to 
be with sympathizing relatives after so long a 
time with strangers. How long we shall remain 
here will depend upon the state of my enfeebled 
health. We are anxious to return to our home 
and gospel work in Tai-an, China, in the coming 
spring and will certainly do so should the Lord 
open thj way for us. 

Our Baptist preachers and brotherhood gener¬ 
ally have treated us variously. In some places 


150 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

they have received us courteously, showing us 
love and honor in consideration of our characters 
and the nature of the work to which we have de¬ 
voted so great a portion of our lives. In other 
places they felt constrained through fear of con¬ 
sequences to ostracise us both publicly and pri¬ 
vately. But none of these things move us. We 
accept the results of our convictions and go on 
with our work for the Master. We would rather 
fail on the truth than succeed on an error. We 
are sorry to find the minds of our people so gen¬ 
erally and so intensely hampered, and pray that 
the Lord in his own way may soon bring them 
deliverance. This Convention Board system, 
which started among American Baptists in 1814, 
has worked great changes in their characters—in 
some respects for the better, perhaps, but in many 
for the worse. After over fifty years of experi¬ 
ence in connection and out of connection 
with the system, I would advise our young 
ministers to avoid putting their necks in 
its halter, but to serve the churches as 
such and in so doing retain their precious free¬ 
dom, manhood and self-respect. 

Dawson, Ga., March 12, 1902. 

This day is the fifty-first anniversary of my 
marriage to Martha Foster in Tuscaloosa county, 
Alabama, immediately after which we began our 
journey towards China, where we arrived safely 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 151 

after spending a little over a year on the way. We 
are now here as refugees from the “Boxer up¬ 
rising,^” waiting in the kind home of our niece, 
Willie Melton, for health and favorable condi¬ 
tions to return again to our home and gospel work 
among the people of that distant land. 

The Dawson Baptists treat us fraternally, not 
seeming so much afraid of “the powers that be ,? 
as those of Asheville and Shelby, N. C. 

March 30, 1902.—This is the fiftieth anniver¬ 
sary of our arrival at Shanghai, our first mission 
station in China, 


LETTER IX. 


REFLECTIONS. 

In conclusion I will add a few reflections upon 
the evolution of my motives and convictions in 
connection with the Gospel Mission movement. 

1. So far as I know my inner self or am able 
to analyze the motives underlying my various 
steps towards Gospel Mission principles, I can 
truly say that no one of them was taken by me 
hastily or through vanity of mind. A desire for 
notoriety, for leadership or the like has con¬ 
sciously had nothing to do with any of them. As 
a Christian man and Baptist of nearly sixty-five 
years’ training under Jesus of Nazareth, I do not 
suffer such carnal desires to take possession of 
my mind or in any way control my actions. Oth¬ 
ers may accuse me of such impulses; but I do 
not acknowledge them to myself. 

2. Neither was any one of the steps taken by 
what may be called voluntary or abstract percep¬ 
tion, but they were forced upon me, one after the 
other, by actual experience in my missionary work 
and its environments—some after much hesitation 
and all with due consideration for those with 


153 


154 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

whom I was associated both on the field and in 
the home-land. 

At first I urged the reformation of the system, 
but found it hopeless. I am now in favor of 
revolution to the finish, and believe it is coming. 
Back to the New Testament conception of Chris¬ 
tianity, the church and its mission through the 
ages. 

3. I have never indulged any personal griev¬ 
ance or feelings of spite towards our Foreign 
Mission Board, either as a body or as individual 
men; neither have I ever held them up as objects 
of special criticism or animadversion; but have 
always regarded them as among the best of such 
Boards. I am opposed to our whole Board sys¬ 
tem, and to their modes of procedure as destruc¬ 
tive to the New Testament type of Christianity, 
which is the God-given mission of the Baptist 
churches so to uphold and propagate to the end 
of the world. Hence I am in conscience bound 
to say: “Churches of Christ, as such, to the front 
and do your own appointed work at home and 
abroad, relying not on gold and other carnal 
means, but on the Gospel as the power of God, 
unto salvation to everyone that believeth.” 

4. While making no complaint against the 
Richmond Board in regard to personal treatment 
prior to the fall of 1885, I feel that they lost all 
control of themselves as Baptists when brought 
by me and several others of their best missiona- 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 155 

ries to deal practically with the question of “native 
self-support/’ “subsidy money,” “freedom of 
speech” and “church or gospel missions.” They 
took our advocacy of these things to be a per¬ 
sonal offense to them and began to deal with us 
accordingly. They denied to us the ordinary 
courtesies of fraternal controversy and treated us 
as obstreperous employes, who had no right 
either to hold or to express an opinion on these 
subjects differing from their own, right or wrong. 
To touch these questions seemed to be a mortal 
offense. Under this strangely incensed state of 
mind they applied a gag to our mouths, raised 
against us the “black flag” and set out to exter¬ 
minate us and our influence with the brotherhood 
by every resource at their command, on the prin¬ 
ciple that the end sanctifies the means—the pres¬ 
ervation of their power over the denomination in 
the southern states being the end. In their eager¬ 
ness to do this they went beyond all Baptist 
bounds in their actions, both in the home-land 
and in their mission fields. The Richmond Board 
may not have acted worse than other Foreign 
Mission Boards would have acted under similar 
circumstances. The Jewish Sanhedrim acted 
worse in the case of Jesus, and it was one of the 
best courts in history. The desire for self-pres¬ 
ervation in Boards, as in individual men, seems 
at times to become so strong as to override every 
law and right that comes in its way. To threaten 


156 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

the endowments on which any recognized power, 
religious or secular, rests for support is, and al¬ 
ways has been, a dangerous thing to do. One 
should make his will and say farewell to his 
household before attempting it. The moderns 
do not differ from the ancients or the Christian 
from the heathen in this particular. The cross, 
like the poor, is always with us. 

THOUGHTS ON CHURCH GOVERN¬ 
MENT. 

Jesus Christ could never have appointed party 
rule for the government of his churches. Such 
rule, whether exercised by a majority or by a 
minority party, is not only of human origin, but 
of the earth earthly. It seeks, not to serve, as 
Christ enjoins both by precept and example, but 
to be served. It brings also into active operation 
the forbidden passion in human nature for vic¬ 
tory and mastery over others and thus leads men 
into all sorts of wrong doings. Jesus, when on 
trial before the Roman governors, said: “My 
kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom 
were of this world, then would my servants fight 
that I should not be delivered to the Jews.” Party 
government is the government of the victorious, 
and it says: “To the victors belong the spoils,” 
a sentiment unworthy of savages. Yet, strange 
to say, the party rule of the majority has become 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 157 

the rule of nearly all our Baptist churches—re¬ 
gardless of Christ’s teaching! Jesus, the head of 
the church, taught his disciples, saying: “Who¬ 
soever will be chief among you, let him be your 
servant; even as the Son of Man came not to be 
ministered unto, but to minister and to give his 
life a ransom for many.” “Whosoever shall ex¬ 
alt himself (in my kingdom) shall be abased; and 
he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” 
“One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are 
brethren.” And “that ye love one another as I 
have loved you.” “Whosoever would be first 
among you shall be servant of all.” Not servant 
of a part of the church, but of the whole church. 
In short, the government instituted by Christ is 
Unanimity, or the rule of the whole body for the 
edification or upbuilding of the whole body in 
love and good works. Unanimity is the only kind 
of self-government possible to a Christian church 
or to any other organized body of men. The 
unanimity rule in a church allays all fears of de¬ 
feat and oppression and thereby puts the mind of 
every member into the best possible mood for the 
transaction of its business. For these reasons 
it operates with the greatest ease and facility, as 
actual practice in a few cases has clearly shown. 
Therefore, let every Baptist church, in obedience 
to the teachings of Christ, the Head and Saviour 
of the body, put the principle into operation by 
adopting something like the following resolution: 


158 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

“This Christian church desires, as a body, under 
the instruction of God’s word and the guidance 
of the Holy Spirit, to reach a unanimous and 
proper decision on all cases coming before it. To 
this end the Moderator of the church will show 
respect for the rights and opinions of every mem¬ 
ber thereof by passing any question which fails 
to secure the approval of all through a second 
and even a third consideration and vote, at the 
request of any member present in the business 
session. Failing thus to secure a unity, the prop¬ 
osition is lost. This church desires to govern 
itself as the executive body of Christ without fear 
or partiality, in accord with the teachings of his 
word.” Such is the way and the spirit in which 
our Baptist churches may each rule itself with 
facility. 

COPY OF MY LETTER TO THE BOARD. 

Greenville, S. C., April 8, 1901. 
To Dr. R. J. Willingham (Cor. Sec. F. M. B.), 

Richmond, Va. 

Dear Brother:—Your note of April 2, writ¬ 
ten as Corresponding Secretary of the Foreign 
Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Conven¬ 
tion, together with two “confidential letters,” ask¬ 
ing me nine specific questions about the character 
and qualifications of two young preachers now ap¬ 
plying for appointment as missionaries of the 


EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 


159 


Board, reached me a few days ago. The Board 
in these letters says: “Please give us your candid 
judgment on the points raised in the following 
questions, and any others you may deem appro¬ 
priate,” etc. 

After mature reflection upon this request of 
the Board and upon my duty in the matter, I beg 
respectfully to decline answering the questions 
submitted. My principal reasons for declining, 
briefly expressed, are these: 

1. Having long ago taken the New Testament 
as the standard of my Christian faith and as the 
guide-book of my religious life, I cannot acknowl¬ 
edge the right of any Central Board or general 
committee of individuals to take official control 
over any part of its ministry and gospel work. 
In my “candid judgment” there is no provision in 
its pages, expressed or implied, for such a body. 

Besides, the rightful existence of such Central 
Body is precluded by the fact that the New Testa¬ 
ment ministry, morality, discipline and gospel 
work are all made subject to the judgment and 
control of every congregation or church of Christ, 
singly or in co-operation with other churches in 
such a way as to keep the unity of the spirit in 
the bonds of peace. 

2. The “Modern Board System,” with its vari¬ 
ous assumed powers and modes of working, is, to 
my mind, out of harmony both with the New 
Testament teachings and with our Baptist type 


l60 EVOLUTION IN MY MISSION VIEWS. 

of Christianity, which I am trying to maintain 
and to extend as a blessing to mankind. 

3. Central Mission Boards, by taking away the 
gifted members, the pecuniary ability and the 
sense of responsibility from our churches, have 
made them as working bodies strangely weak, 
dependent and lifeless. They are thus becoming 
painfully incapable of carrying out the commission 
of Christ and of propagating a healthy, manly 
and spiritual form of the Christian religion, either 
at home or in foreign lands. If things continue 
to go on after the present drift much longer all 
our mission efforts and saving influences must 
prove a failure. 

Oh, brethren of the Board, would that you 
could cast all your assumed burdens and unman¬ 
ageable responsibilities upon God and the 
churches, where Christ and his Apostles placed 
them to the end of the world; and would that 
we all could strive earnestly to bring our dying 
churches into real spiritual life and self-denying 
activity, as such, before it is too late! 

With fraternal regards for yourself and for the 
various members of the Board personally, I re¬ 
main, dear brother, 

Yours sincerely, 

T. P. Crawford. 


GRAVE: OF REV. TARLETON PERRY CRAWFORD, D. D., DAWSON, GA. 












NOV 6 1903 















Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 





LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


• 4 « » I 

t; r J 1 
































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































